Skip to main content

Full text of "Colonial Society of Massachusetts Publications [Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts]"

See other formats 


974.4 
C714p 
v.  38 

1160373 


GENEALOGY  COLf  ACTION 


a i l PKI  r.nilMTY  PIIRI  1C  l IBRARY 


R 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/colonialsocietyo38colo 


Publications 

of 

W$t  Colonial  ^>ottetj»  of  Jtlassarfjusetts 

• • 

TRANSACTIONS 

1947-1951 


Committee  of  publication 

LYMAN  HENRY  BUTTERFIELD 
ROBERT  EARLE  MOODY 
WALTER  MUIR  WHITEHILL 

COitor  of  publications 

WALTER  MUIR  WHITEHILL 


ALLYN  BAILEY  FORBES 
1 897— 1 947 

Editor  oj  Publications  oj  the 
Colonial  Society  oj  Massachusetts 
i932~i946 


PUBLICATIONS 

• ~i  ti  tj' i rtnMiMii»B<ii«inii^wi  ■mrfru . vt»  r.auiMv * * i •*Nmv wrmi. 

of 

Clje  Colonial  Society  of  £pae&acl)u0ett0 

VOLUME  XXXVIII 
_ 

TRANSACTIONS 

1947-19  f i 


Gc 

<i  J3>  *L0& 


t n. 


15omn 

PUBLISHED  BY  THE  SOCIETY 


1959 


Table  of  Contents 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 
OFFICERS,  i NOVEMBER  1958 
RESIDENT  MEMBERS 
HONORARY  MEMBERS 
CORRESPONDING  MEMBERS 
NON-RESIDENT  MEMBERS 
MEMBERS  DECEASED 


1160373 


Page 

vii 

ix 

xi 

xiii 

xiii 

xiv 

xv 


PAPERS  AND  DOCUMENTS 

Sir  Christopher  Gardyner,  by  Louis  Dow  Scisco  3 

John  Dury’s  Correspondence  with  the  Clergy  of  New  Eng- 
land about  Ecclesiastical  Peace,  by  G.  H.  Turnbull  18 

Robert  Child,  by  G.  H.  Turnbull  21 

Extortion,  Captain  Turner,  and  the  Widow  Stolion,  by 

Charles  Eliot  Goodspeed  60 

The  Routes  of  Boston’s  Trade,  1752—1765,  by  Murray  G. 

Lawson  8 1 

Antoine  de  Lamothe  Cadillac,  Lord  of  Douaquet,  by  Richard 

Walden  Hale,  Jr.  121 

The  New  England  Company  of  1649  and  its  Missionary  En- 
terprises, by  Frederick  L.  Weis  134 

George  Stirk,  Philosopher  by  Fire  (1628?— 1665),  by  G.  H. 

Turnbull  219 

A Seventeenth-Century  Pennacook  Quilled  Pouch,  by  Ernest 

S.  Dodge  253 

Fund  Raising  in  the  1750’s,  by  Palfrey  Perkins  265 

The  King’s  Chapel  Library,  by  Walter  Muir  Whitehill  274 

Judge  Oliver  and  the  Small  Oliver  House  in  Middleborough, 

by  Peter  Oliver  292 


VI 


Table  of  Contents 

The  Islesford  Museum,  by  Wendell  Stan  wood  Hadlock  314 

Early  Parliamentary  Legislation  on  Writs  of  Assistance,  by 

Joseph  Raphael  Frese  318 

T utor  Flynt’s  Silver  Chamber-Pot,  by  Walter  Muir  W hite- 

HILL  360 

The  Pilgrim  Fathers,  Their  Significance  in  History,  by  Sam- 
uel Eliot  Morison  364 

The  Mayflower  s Destination,  and  the  Pilgrim  Fathers’  Patents, 

by  Samuel  Eliot  Morison  387 

The  Question  of  French  Involvement  in  King  Philip’s  War, 

by  Douglas  Edward  Leach  414 


BUSINESS  PROCEEDINGS 


Members  Elected  17, 

54, 60, 129, 134, 252, 260, 
302>  313>  3!7>  380,  386 

Committee  to  Nominate  Officers  Appointed 
Committee  to  Examine  the  Treasurer’s  Ac- 

17, 121,  252,  291 

counts  Appointed 

17,  121,  252,  291 

Deaths  of  Members  Announced 

3,  16,  54,  121,  219,  252, 
265,  313,  3*7 

Report  of  the  Council 

55>  i29>  263,  308,  382 

Report  of  the  Treasurer 

57)  J3i)  260,  306,  380 

Report  of  the  Auditing  Committee 

58,  132,  262,  307,  380 

Officers  Elected 

59)  I32.  262,  308,  380 

Annual  Dinner 

59.  133.  263,  308,  380 

Changes  in  By-Laws 

252,  262,  308,  383 

Journey  to  Hadley 

128 

Journey  to  Middleborough 

292 

Journey  to  Plymouth 

364 

INDEX 

423 

Illustrations 


A llyn  Bailey  Forbes 

Seventeenth-century  Indian  pouch 

List  oj  books  in  Kings  Chafel  Library 

The  Oliver  house  in  Middleborough , Massachusetts 

Mrs.  Daniel  Oliver 

The  three  Oliver  brothers 

Chief  Justice  Peter  Oliver 

Chief  Justice  Peter  Oliver 

Peter  Oliver  fishing 

Thomas  Fitch  Oliver  fishing 


Frontispiece 
between  pp.  256—257 
between  pp.  280—281 
between  pp.  296—297 


Officers  of 

Cfte  Colonial  ^ocietg  of  fi@assact)U0etts 

i November  1958 


President 

RICHARD  MOTT  GUMMERE 

Vice-Presidents 

SAMUEL  ELIOT  MORISON 
THOMAS  BOYLSTON  ADAMS 

Recording  Secretary 

ROBERT  EARLE  MOODY 

Corresponding  Secretary 

DAVID  BRITTON  LITTLE 

Treasurer 

CARLETON  RUBIRA  RICHMOND 

Executive  Members  of  Council 

LYMAN  HENRY  BUTTERFIELD 
FREDERICK  SCOULLER  ALLIS,  JR. 
WILLIAM  BRADFORD  OSGOOD 

Editor  of  Publications 

WALTER  MUIR  WHITEHILL 


Resident  Members 

In  the  Order  oj  their  Enrolment 


1899 

Frederic  Haines  Curtiss 
1902 

Francis  Apthorp  Foster 
1908 

Charles  Edwards  Park 

191 1 

Mark  Antony  DeWolfe  Howe 

1912 

Clarence  Saunders  Brigham 
Fred  Norris  Robinson 
Samuel  Eliot  Morison 

1915 

Henry  Wilder  Foote 

1922 

George  Pomeroy  Anderson 
Arthur  Stanwood  Pier 

1923 

Kenneth  Ballard  Murdock 

1924 

Benjamin  Loring  Young 
Edward  Motley  Pickman 

1928 

James  Phinney  Baxter,  3rd 

1929 

Philip  Putnam  Chase 
Arthur  Orlo  Norton 
Richard  Ammi  Cutter 
Francis  Parkman 

1931 

Robert  Ephraim  Peabody 
Harold  Bowditch 


1932 

Clifford  Kenyon  Shipton 
Perry  Miller 
Henry  Lee  Shattuck 
Robert  Earle  Moody 

1933 

Ludlow  Griscom 

1935 

Richard  Mott  Gummere 
Albert  Warren  Stearns 

1937 

Jerome  Davis  Greene 
Henry  Rouse  Viets 

1938 

William  Alexander  Jackson 

1939 

Palfrey  Perkins 
Morton  Peabody  Prince 

1940 

Frederick  Scouller  Allis,  Jr. 
Walter  Muir  Whitehill 
Stephen  Phillips 

1941 

Elliott  Perkins 

1942 

Richard  LeBaron  Bowen 
George  Norton  Northrop 
Arthur  Meier  Schlesinger,  Jr. 

1943 

Lawrence  Waters  Jenkins 
Henry  Morse  Channing 

1944 

Charles  Dyer  Childs 


Xll 


Resident  Members 


1945 

Howard  Mumford  Jones 
Ernest  Stanley  Dodge 
Ellis  Wethrell  Brewster 
Richard  Walden  Hale,  Jr. 

1946 

George  Talbot  Goodspeed 

1947 

Charles  Henry  Powars  Copeland 
George  Caspar  Homans 
Mark  DeWolfe  Howe 
Frederick  Milton  Kimball 
Chauncey  Cushing  Nash 
Frederick  Lewis  Weis 
Kenneth  John  Conant 
Samuel  Chamberlain 
Bartlett  Harding  Hayes,  Jr. 
Henry  Forbush  Howe 
Carleton  Rubira  Richmond 

1948 

Raymond  Sanger  Wilkins 
Edward  Ely  Curtis 
Henry  Hornblower,  II 

1949 

John  Otis  Brew 
Francis  Whiting  Hatch 

1950 

Charles  Howard  McIlwain 
Arthur  Meier  Schlesinger 
ZOLTAN  HARASZTI 
Arthur  Joseph  Riley 
Michael  James  Walsh 
Oscar  Handlin 
Mark  Bortman 
John  Phillips  Coolidge 
Bertram  Kimball  Little 
David  Britton  Little 
David  Pingree  Wheatland 
Stephen  Wheatland 


1951 

Gordon  Thaxter  Banks 
Buchanan  Charles 
I.  Bernard  Cohen 
Dennis  Aloysius  Dooley 
William  Henry  Harrison 
David  Milton  Kendall  McKibbin 
David  Thompson  Watson  McCord 
Richard  Donald  Pierce 
Stephen  Thomas  Riley 
Robert  Dale  Richardson 
Douglas  Swain  Byers 
Alfred  Porter  Putnam 
Howard  Arthur  Jones 
Augustus  Peabody  Loring 
James  Otis 
John  Adams 
Arthur  Adams 

Alexander  Whiteside  Williams 

1952 

Warren  Ortman  Ault 
Thomas  Boylston  Adams 

1953 

Robert  Hammond  Haynes 
Edward  Neal  Hartley 

1954 

Lyman  Henry  Butterfield 
Charles  Rutan  Strickland 
Hugh  Whitney 
William  Bentinck  Smith 
Bernard  Bailyn 
Claude  Moore  Fuess 

1955 

Ebenezer  Gay 
William  Hall  Best 
William  Bradford  Osgood 
Myron  Piper  Gilmore 
Perry  Townsend  Rathbone 
Walter  MacIntosh  Merrill 
Charles  Akers 


Resident  Members 


1956 

Marion  Vernon  Brevvington 
Paul  Herman  Buck 
Edward  Pierce  Hamilton 
Frederick  Johnson 
Benjamin  Woods  Labaree 
Edwin  Williams  Small 
Duncan  Howlett 


1957 

Abbott  Lowell  Cummings 
William  Rotch 
Conover  Fitch 
Richard  Bourne  Holman 
Frederick  Josiah  Bradlee 
Malcolm  Freiberg 


1958 

Bryant  Paine,  Jr. 


John 


Honorary  Members 


1934 

George  Macaulay  Trevelyan 
James  Bryant  Conant 

1944 

Samuel  Williston 

1947 

Richard  James  Cushing 
Norman  Burdett  Nash 
Leverett  Saltonstall 
Robert  Fiske  Bradford 


1951 

Julian  Parks  Boyd 

1953 

Nathan  Marsh  Pusey 
Keyes  DeWitt  Metcalf 
Henry  Francis  duPont 

1954 

Waldo  Gifford  Leland 

1955 

Mark  Antony  DeWolfe  Howe 


Corresponding  Members 

1926  1933 

Henry  Crocker  Kittredge  John  Farquhar  Fulton 


1929 

Chauncey  Brewster  Tinker 
Thomas  Stearns  Eliot 
George  Andrews  Moriarty,  Jr. 

1931 

John  Howland  Gibbs  Pell 
Leonard  Woods  Labaree 

1932 

Walter  Goodwin  Davis 
Samuel  Flagg  Bemis 


1935 

Lawrence  Counselman  Wroth 

1936 

Curtis  Putnam  Nettels 

1937 

James  Alexander  Williamson 
Verner  Winslow  Crane 

1938 

Fulmer  Mood 


xiv  Corresponding  Members 

1939 


Ernest  Caulfield 
Theodore  Hornberger 

1940 

Thomas  Herbert  Johnson 
William  Gurdon  Saltonstall 

1944 

Carleton  Sprague  Smith 
Ralph  Henry  Gabriel 
Raymond  Phineas  Stearns 

1945 

Herbert  Ross  Brown 

1948 

Carl  Bridenbaugh 

1949 

Wendell  Stanwood  Hadlock 

1950 

William  Greenough  Wendell 
Bernhard  Knollenberg 

1951 

Henry  Beston 
William  Robert  Chaplin 
Louis  Booker  Wright 
John  Edwin  Pomfret 
Marius  Barbeau 
Douglass  Adair 


Arthur  Pierce  Middleton 
Oliver  Morton  Dickerson 
Lawrence  Henry  Gipson 

1952 

Carl  Purington  Rollins 
Raleigh  Ashlin  Skelton 
Frederick  George  Emmison 

1953 

William  Hutchinson  Pynchon 
Oliver 
Ray  Nash 

Jose  Maria  de  la  Pena 

1954 

Robert  Sturgis  Ingersoll 
Henry  Joel  Cadbury 

1955 

Lester  Jesse  Cappon 
Gilbert  Stuart  McClintock 

1956 

Vernon  Dale  Tate 
Wesley  Frank  Craven 
Alfred  A.  Knopf 
Francis  Lewis  Berkeley 

1957 

Thompson  Ritner  Harlow 
Thomas  Randolph  Adams 


Non-Resident  Members 


1950 

James  Lincoln  Huntington 
Parl  Birdsall 
Chandler  Bullock 
Robert  Walcott,  Jr. 
William  Roberts  Carlton 
Edmund  Sears  Morgan 
Peter  Oliver 


Robert  William  Glenroie  Vail 
Edward  Allen  Whitney 
Charles  Leslie  Glenn 
John  Lydenberg 
George  Lee  Haskins 
Daniel  Joseph  Boorstin 
Sarell  Everett  Gleason 


XV 


Non-Resident  Members 


*95 1 

Joseph  Raphael  Frese 
William  Lewis  Sachse 
Whitfield  Jenks  Bell,  Jr. 

1952 

Douglas  Edward  Leach 
Alexander  Orr  Vietor 
Everett  Harold  Hugo 

1953 

Hamilton  Vaughan  Bail 
Charles  Woolsey  Cole 


John  Douglas  Forbes 

Francis  Taylor  Pearsons  Plimpton 

1954 

Charles  Cortez  Abbott 
Sumner  Chilton  Powell 

1955 

Lawrence  William  Towner 
Lucius  James  Knowles 

1956 

Earle  Williams  Newton 


Members  Deceased 

Members  who  have  died  since  the  publication  of  the  preceding  volume  of  T ransac- 

tionSj  with  date  of  death 

Resident 


Harold  Hitchings  Burbank 

7 February 

1951 

George  Gregerson  Wolkins 

2 March 

1951 

Augustus  Peabody  Loring,  Jr. 

1 October 

1951 

Winthrop  Howland  Wade 

26  January 

1952 

George  Parker  Winship 

23  June 

1952 

Reginald  Fitz 

27  May 

1953 

Julian  Lowell  Coolidge 

5 March 

1954 

James  Melville  Hunnewell 

21  March 

1954 

Alfred  Marston  Tozzer 

5 October 

1954 

James  Duncan  Phillips 

19  October 

1954 

Roger  Ernst 

1 April 

1955 

Willard  Goodrich  Cogswell 

20  May 

1955 

Allan  Forbes 

9 July 

1955 

Stephen  Willard  Phillips 

6 July 

1955 

John  Peabody  Monks 

3 March 

1956 

Robert  Walcott 

1 1 November 

1956 

Robert  Dickson  Weston 

30  November 

1956 

Llewellyn  Howland 

5 January 

1957 

Joseph  Breed  Berry 

28  January 

1957 

Zechariah  Chafee,  Jr. 

8 February 

1957 

William  Emerson 

4 May 

1957 

Robert  Peabody  Bellows 

23  May 

1957 

XVI 


Members  Deceased 


Wilfred  James  Doyle 

i 8 J une 

1957 

Stewart  Mitchell 

3 November 

1957 

Paul  Whitman  Etter 

23  May 

1958 

Laurence  Brown  Fletcher 

30  June 

1958 

Honorary 

Douglas  Southall  Freeman 

1 3 June 

1953 

Alice  Bache  Gould 

25  July 

1953 

Francis  Henry  Taylor 

22  November 

1957 

Corresponding 

Ogden  Codman 

8 January 

1951 

Robert  Francis  Seybolt 

5 February 

1951 

William  Gwinn  Mather 

5 Afrit 

1951 

Richard  Clipston  Sturgis 

8 May 

1951 

Reginald  Coupland 

6 November 

1952 

Frederic  Adrian  Delano 

28  March 

1953 

John  Marshall  Phillips 

7 May 

1953 

Kenneth  Charles  Morton  Sills 

1 5 November 

1954 

Herbert  Putnam 

14  A ugust 

1955 

Earl  Morse  Wilbur 

8 January 

1956 

Stanley  Thomas  Williams 

2 February 

1956 

Foster  Stearns 

4 June 

1956 

Joseph  Burr  Tyrell 

27  August 

1957 

Non-Resident 

Warner  Foote  Gookin 

2 March 

1953 

William  Greene  Roelker 

29  May 

1953 

Transactions 
1 947_1 951 


Transactions  of 

Cl)e  Colonial  £>octety  of  £0agsacl)U0ctt0 

February  Meeting,  1947 

A STATED  Meeting  of  the  Society  was  held,  at  the  invita- 
tion of  Mr.  Samuel  Eliot  Morison,  at  No.  44  Brim- 
^ mer  Street,  Boston,  on  Thursday,  20  February  1947, 
at  a quarter  after  three  o’clock  in  the  afternoon,  the  President, 
Augustus  Peabody  Loring,  Jr.,  in  the  chair. 

The  records  of  the  last  Stated  Meeting  were  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

The  President  reported  the  death  on  21  January  1947  of 
Allyn  Bailey  Forbes,  a Resident  Member,  and  that  on  3 Feb- 
ruary 1947  of  Wilbur  Cortez  Abbott,  a Resident  Member. 

Mr.  Kenneth  John  Conant  then  read  a paper  entitled 
“The  Newport  Tower.” 

The  Editor  communicated  by  title  the  following  paper  by 
Mr.  Louis  Dow  Scisco: 

Sir  Christopher  Gardyner 

FOR  three  hundred  years  romance  and  mystery  have  surrounded 
the  personality  of  Sir  Christopher  Gardyner,  so-called  Knight  of 
the  Golden  Melice  and  early  sojourner  at  Massachusetts  Bay  in  the 
days  of  the  Puritans.  Where  the  wilderness  touched  the  sea  he  reared  his 
cabin  home,  ensconced  therein  a comely  consort  from  Old  England,  and 
tried  to  cultivate  the  friendship  of  his  colonist  neighbors.  But  those  neigh- 
bors, being  mostly  serious-minded  Puritan  persons,  made  no  pretense  of 
liking  Sir  Christopher  or  his  ways.  Despite  his  assertion  of  social  quality 
he  was  courteously  but  firmly  ushered  out  of  the  country,  leaving  in  local 
records  no  clear  reference  to  his  identity. 

So,  for  three  centuries  students  of  colonial  history  have  wondered  who 


4 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [feb. 

he  was  and  whither  he  went  after  he  left  New  England.  The  aura  of  ro- 
mance that  lay  about  him  led  Longfellow  to  write  a pleasant  poem  on  Sir 
Christopher  and  his  lady  fair.  Some  writers  of  fiction  have  made  him  a 
character  in  their  tales.  In  a more  serious  way  the  scholarly  Charles  Fran- 
cis Adams  wrote  a historical  treatise  about  his  brief  stay  in  New  England, 
but  failed  to  reveal  his  identity  otherwise. 

Thanks  to  the  accumulation  of  printed  historical  material  in  England 
in  the  last  few  decades,  historical  research  into  the  identity  of  mysterious 
English  gentlemen  is  not  so  difficult  as  it  was  in  former  times.  Governor 
John  Winthrop,  writing  about  Sir  Christopher  in  1631,  said  <CI  never  in- 
tended any  hard  measure  to  him,  but  to  respect  and  use  him  according  to 
his  quality.”  Winthrop  knew  him  to  be  a man  of  social  standing  and  pos- 
sible influence.  Evidence  now  reveals  that  Sir  Christopher  was  a member 
of  a respected  family  of  English  gentry  in  Surrey,  that  he  was  a nephew  of 
Sir  Thomas  Gardyner,  a friend  of  the  royal  family,  and  that  he  was  a 
brother-in-law  of  Sir  John  Heydon,  trusted  official  of  King  Charles,  hold- 
ing the  position  of  lieutenant  of  ordnance.  All  of  which  was  good  reason 
for  the  Puritan  magistrates  to  avoid  meting  out  any  “hard  measure”  to- 
ward him. 

The  ancestry  of  Sir  Christopher  is  revealed  by  the  visitation  pedigrees 
of  the  heralds,  three  of  which  show  his  position  in  the  family.1  The  found- 
er of  the  family,  as  shown  by  the  pedigrees,  was  one  William  Gardyner, 
who  removed  from  Hertfordshire  somewhere  around  1540  and  estab- 
lished himself  on  the  Surrey  side  of  the  Thames,  in  the  Southwark  area  of 
modern  London.  King  Henry  had  then  sequestrated  the  lands  of  Ber- 
mondsey Abbey.  The  abbot’s  farm,  called  Bermondsey  Grange,  was 
granted  to  the  Earl  of  Salisbury,  and  he  in  turn  transferred  it  by  some 
form  of  long-term  lease  to  William  Gardyner.  In  the  published  records 
William  emerges  from  obscurity  in  1542,  when  he  is  mentioned  casually 
in  a royal  grant  of  abbey  land  as  being  abutting  owner.2  The  Bermondsey 
parish  register  records  the  burial  in  June  of  1549  of  William,  described 
as  “farmer  of  Bermondsey  Grange.”3  A son,  also  named  William,  then 
inherited  the  family  property.  When  Sir  Christopher  was  in  New  Eng- 
land he  boasted  that  he  was  of  the  same  family  stock  as  Stephen  Gardiner, 

1 The  earliest  pedigree,  apparently  made  about  1598,  is  in  the  first  volume  of  the 
Harleian  Society.  The  second,  of  1623,  is  in  Surrey  Archceological  Collections , XI. 
The  third,  of  1624  or  1625,  is  in  the  forty-third  volume  of  the  Harleian  Society. 

2 Calendar  of  State  Pafers , Henry  VIII , xvn.  167. 

3 The  Registers  of  St.  Mary  Magdalene , Bermondsey  [supplement  to  The  Geneal- 
ogist, New  Series,  vi],  3. 


1947]  Sir  Christopher  Gardyner  5 

formerly  bishop  of  Winchester  and  lord  chancellor  of  the  realm.4  His 
assertion  is  believable.  The  bishop  was  contemporary  with  William  of 
Surrey,  and  was  a native  of  Suffolk,  not  so  far  from  Hertfordshire  as  to 
make  relationship  unlikely. 

The  second  William  of  the  family  line  was  somewhat  of  a public  figure 
in  his  county.  In  1569  he  appeared  as  arquebus  man  at  the  militia  mus- 
ter.5 6 In  that  same  year  he  was  collector  of  assessments  for  the  drainage 
commission  of  Surrey  and  Kent,  resigning  because  the  farmers  with  whom 
he  had  to  deal  were  largely  his  own  tenants.0  Later,  in  1574,  he  was  made 
disbursing  officer  for  the  commission.  On  this  occasion  he  is  described  as 
“William  Gardner,  gentleman,”  which  shows  that  he  had  acquired  ar- 
morial bearings  and  ranked  with  the  country  gentry.7  The  arms  thus  ob- 
tained were  “Azure,  a griffin  passant,  or.”8  In  1588  he  subscribed  £50 
for  defense  against  the  Spanish  armada.9  He  may  have  been  the  member 
of  parliament  of  that  name  chosen  in  1588  and  in  1592.  In  1592  the 
privy  council  put  him  on  a commission  to  suppress  disorders  in  Southwark,1 
and  in  1594  he  was  criticized  for  not  doing  well  thereat.2  Meanwhile  he 
was  assessor  of  subsidies  in  1593  and  15 94. 3 About  this  time  he  bought 
property  at  Dorking.  The  parish  register  notices  his  burial  in  December, 
1 5 97, 4 and  his  will  is  recorded,  describing  him  as  of  Bermondsey  and 
Dorking.5  Of  his  four  sons,  the  eldest  died  just  before  his  father.  Two 
other  sons  became  local  notables  known  as  Sir  Thomas  of  Peckham  and 
Sir  William  of  Lagham. 

Third  in  the  family  line  was  Christopher  Gardyner,  eldest  son  of  the 
second  William,  and  father  of  Sir  Christopher.  His  birth  was  about  Janu- 
ary, 1563,  but  his  baptism  does  not  appear  in  the  Bermondsey  parish  rec- 
ords. Of  his  personality  there  is  hardly  a trace.  In  1581  he  is  recorded  as 

4 Bradford’s  History  of  Plymouth  Plantation , William  T.  Davis,  Editor  (New  York, 
1908),  286. 

5 Surrey  Record  Society,  Surrey  Musters , 147. 

6 Court  Minutes  of  Sewer  Commissioners,  1.  240. 

7 Id.,  I.  193.  8 Harleian  Society,  1.  87. 

9 A.  Ridley  Bax,  “Surrey  and  the  Spanish  Armada,”  Surrey  Archceological  Collec- 
tions, xvi.  249—250. 

1 Acts  of  the  Privy  Council  of  England , New  Series,  xxn  (London,  1901),  551. 
Id.,  xxiii.  19. 

2 Calendar  of  State  Pafers,  Elizabeth,  1591— 1594,  464. 

3 A.  Ridley  Bax,  “The  Lay  Subsidy  Assessments  for  the  County  of  Surrey,”  Surrey 
Archceological  Collections , xvm.  165,  187,  188. 

4 The  Registers  of  St.  Mary  Magdalene,  Bermondsey  [supplement  to  The  Geneal- 
ogist, New  Series,  vm],  166.  5 Index  Society  Publications,  xxv.  166. 


6 


The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [feb. 

a youthful  law  student  at  the  Inner  Temple,6  and  then  he  disappears  from 
view  for  some  years.  In  June  of  1594  he  reappears  as  a bridegroom.  The 
bride  was  Judith  Sackville,  daughter  of  a good  Sussex  family.7  He  now 
became  a resident  at  Dorking,8  where  his  father  owned  the  estate  called 
Sondes  Place.  However,  when  their  first  child  came,  a daughter  named 
Frances,  they  seem  to  have  been  in  London,  for  their  girl  was  baptized 
there.9  Their  second  child  was  a boy,  named  after  his  father.  Christo- 
pher himself  died  in  1596  according  to  the  visitation  pedigree.  As  his  fa- 
ther William  outlived  him  by  a few  months,  Christopher  never  possessed 
the  family  estates.  His  widow  married  again  later  and  had  a daughter 
known  in  the  records  as  Mary  Phillips. 

The  younger  Christopher  Gardyner  was  born  probably  in  1596.  Both 
date  and  place  are  uncertain,  as  the  Dorking  parish  register  has  no  men- 
tion of  his  arrival.  Of  his  boyhood  there  is  no  direct  information.  Appar- 
ently the  widow  kept  Sondes  Place  and  brought  up  her  children  there,  for 
young  Christopher  was  his  grandfather’s  heir  and  it  is  known  that  Sondes 
Place  remained  with  the  Gardyner  family  for  many  years.  The  first  defi- 
nite glimpse  of  young  Christopher  reveals  him  as  beginning  student  life  in 
1613  at  Cambridge  University.1  But  seemingly  he  did  not  fit  well  with 
the  scholastic  atmosphere,  for,  a year  later,  in  November,  1614,  he  started 
the  study  of  law  at  the  Inner  Temple,2  following  in  his  father’s  footsteps. 
But  even  this  did  not  hold  him,  and  in  July,  1615,  the  privy  council  min- 
utes show  that  one  Christopher  Gardiner  and  his  servant  Alexander  Darby 
were  allowed  license  for  three  years  of  travel,  with  the  usual  proviso  that 
they  should  not  go  to  Rome.3 

If  the  three-year  period  were  observed  by  the  travelers,  they  got  back 
to  England  in  1618  and  the  matured  young  man  was  ready  to  assume 
control  of  his  inheritance.  The  elder  Christopher  seems  not  to  have  had 
much  money  of  his  own,  but,  being  an  eldest  son,  he  had  been  named  in 

6 A.  Ridley  Bax,  “Members  of  the  Inner  Temple,  1547-1660,”  Surrey  Archaeologi- 
cal Collections , XI v.  22. 

7 The  Registers  of  St.  Mary  Magdalene , Bermondsey  [supplement  to  The  Geneal- 
ogist, New  Series,  vm],  147. 

8 A.  Ridley  Bax,  “Documents  Illustrative  of  the  Heralds’  Visitations,”  Surrey 
Archaeological  Collections,  xxm.  21 1. 

9 Harleian  Society  Registers,  V.  65. 

1 John  Venn  and  J.  A.  Venn,  Alumni  Cantabrigienses,  Part  I,  11  (Cambridge,  1922), 
191. 

2 A.  Ridley  Bax,  “Members  of  the  Inner  Temple,  1547-1660,”  Surrey  Archceologi- 
cal  Collections,  xiv.  26. 

3 Acts  of  the  Privy  Council  of  England , 1615-1616  (London,  1925),  246. 


1947]  Sir  Christopher  Gardyner  7 

his  father’s  will  for  a double  portion  of  the  father’s  estate.  When  death 
claimed  the  elder  Christopher  just  prior  to  the  father’s  death,  this  legacy 
devolved  upon  the  younger  Christopher  as  grandson  and  heir.  Sir  Thomas 
of  Peckham  tells  this  and  complains  about  young  Christopher.  He  says 
that  he  had  been  partner  of  the  elder  Christopher  in  some  transaction  that 
left  them  £2000  in  debt.  Of  this,  £600  was  the  elder  Christopher’s  obli- 
gation, which  Sir  Thomas  had  to  bear,  and  when  the  younger  Christo- 
pher came  into  his  inheritance  he  showed  no  inclination  whatever  to  repay 
Sir  Thomas  that  amount.4 

At  some  time  about  1620  both  young  Christopher  and  his  sister  Fran- 
ces assumed  matrimonial  bonds.  Frances  married  her  cousin  William 
Gardyner,  son  of  the  peevish  Sir  Thomas,  and  the  latter  is  irritable  also 
about  this  marriage.  He  says  that  he  had  hoped  to  marry  his  son  to  some 
woman  of  property  whose  money  could  be  used  in  making  jointures  for 
William’s  sisters,  and  as  it  was,  William’s  marriage  was  not  helpful.  Sir 
Thomas  admits  that  Frances  brought  her  husband  money,  for  she  had 
£400  in  cash  and  £200  in  annual  income,  all  of  which  William  scattered 
to  the  winds,  as  well  as  an  allowance  of  £55  a year  that  Sir  Thomas  him- 
self gave  for  support  of  the  family.  Evidently  William  had  his  faults,  but 
nevertheless  he  moved  in  high  circles  and  in  1626  attained  in  some  way  to 
the  honor  of  knighthood. 

Young  Christopher  seems  to  have  married  more  happily  than  did  his 
sister.  His  bride  was  Elizabeth  Onslow,  daughter  of  Sir  Edward  Onslow, 
a resident  in  Surrey.  The  wedded  pair  lived  at  Dorking  and  two  children 
came  to  them,  a son  named  Onslow  and  a daughter  Judith.  Both  of  them 
are  shown  in  the  visitation  pedigrees.  Then,  on  12  April  1624,  the  young 
mother  died.  A mortuary  brass  in  her  memory  was  set  up  in  the  Dorking 
church  by  the  bereaved  husband.  It  bore  a commemorative  inscription 
and  the  combined  arms  of  Gardyner,  Onslow,  and  Sackville.5  In  the 
latest  of  the  family  pedigrees  the  date  of  the  wife’s  death  is  stated  and  a 
third  child  is  indicated  by  a dash,6  from  which  it  may  be  supposed  that  she 
died  in  childbirth.  This  last  child  presumably  is  another  Christopher,  who 
appears  in  the  records  in  later  years. 

When  Gardyner  in  after  years  was  in  Plymouth  Colony  as  an  unwill- 
ing guest  he  lost  a notebook  which  contained  “a  memorial  what  day  he 
was  reconciled  to  the  pope  and  church  of  Rome,  and  in  what  universitie 

4 Sir  Thomas  Gardyner’s  letter  to  the  King-,  1630,  transcript  in  author’s  possession. 

5 Mill  Stephenson,  “A  List  of  Monumental  Brasses  in  Surrey,”  Surrey  Archceologi- 
cal  Collections , xxvn.  86. 

6 Harleian  Society  Publications,  xliii.  60. 


8 


The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [feb. 

he  took  his  scapula,  and  such  and  such  degrees.”7  From  middle  1624  to 
middle  1626  there  is  a gap  in  references  to  Christopher.  Apparently  these 
experiences  might  fit  into  this  gap,  assuming  that  he  went  to  the  continent 
after  his  wife’s  death.  More  intriguing  is  the  fact  that  about  this  time  he 
became  a papal  knight,  by  reason  of  which  he  assumed  a little  swank  with 
a “Sir”  before  his  name.  Governor  Bradford  of  New  Plymouth  called 
him  Knight  of  the  Holy  Sepulcher  and  said  he  acquired  knighthood  at 
Jerusalem,  all  which  seems  somewhat  doubtful.  Governor  Winthrop 
seems  more  accurate  when  he  calls  him  Knight  of  the  Golden  Melice, 
meaning  the  papal  Milizia  Aurata y an  order  of  merit  conferred  at  that 
time  on  Catholic  laymen  of  minor  distinction.  The  recipients  of  this 
honor  were  usually  called  knights  of  the  golden  spur.8  Just  why  an  ob- 
scure Englishman  should  have  obtained  this  distinction  is  not  clear,  unless 
one  may  suppose  that  Christopher  was  rewarded  for  some  service  done 
for  the  new  king  in  England  who  succeeded  to  the  throne  in  1625. 9 
Perhaps  also  a clue  exists  in  the  fact  that  on  the  mortuary  brass  set  up  in 
Dorking  church  Christopher’s  father-in-law  is  described  as  equitis  aurati.1 

Gardyner  is  noticed  in  England  again  in  1626.  Royal  license  of  9 June 
authorizes  John  and  Henry  Gage  to  convey  to  Christopher  Gardyner  their 
holding  of  Haling  Manor  at  Croydon  in  Surrey,  for  which  the  buyer  is  to 
pay  £2850.  The  premises  were  conveyed  on  12  July  and  John  Gage  died 
on  6 December.2  Presumably  Gardyner  then  took  possession.  Whether 
Christopher’s  mother  was  still  living  at  Sondes  Place  is  not  in  evidence.  If 
living,  she  probably  came  to  Haling  Hall,  for  in  March,  1627,  Christo- 
pher’s brother-in-law  William  Gardyner  was  living  at  Dorking  and 
pleading  poverty  as  his  excuse  for  not  paying  a subscription  that  he  had 
formerly  given. 

In  1628  Christopher  appears  in  the  position  of  guardian  or  trustee  for 
his  half-sister  Mary  Phillips.  Her  father  had  died,  leaving  her  some  money. 
On  the  scene  arrived  Sir  John  Heydon  as  suitor  for  Mary’s  hand  and  her 
money.  Sir  John  was  about  forty  years  old  and  Mary  was  probably  con- 
siderably younger,  but  he  held  a government  office  of  some  importance, 
and  probably  he  had  courtly  manners,  so  his  suit  was  quite  successful.  Sir 

7 Bradford’s  History , 287. 

8 Revista  del  Colie gio  Araldicay  1905  et  seq. 

9 Records  of  the  old  milizia  aurata  are  believed  to  be  in  the  Propaganda  archives 
of  the  Vatican.  A special  search  of  the  archives  failed  to  reveal  any  mention  of 
Gardyner. 

1 John  Aubrey,  History  of  Surrey , iv.  158. 

2 Paget,  Croydon  Homes  of  the  Pasty  53. 


1947]  Sir  Christopher  Gardyner  9 

Christopher  signed  an  ante-nuptial  contract  to  pay  over  £1500  to  Sir  John 
and  the  marriage  took  place  in  December,  162 8. 3 That  contract  by  Chris- 
topher became  a matter  of  contention  years  later  because  Gardyner  was 
remiss  in  living  up  to  his  agreement. 

In  1630  Christopher  ventured  to  visit  America.  He  sailed  in  some  ship 
going  to  Newfoundland  or  Maine,  and  from  one  of  these  places  went  on- 
ward, reaching  Massachusetts  in  the  spring  of  that  year,  bringing  with 
him  a woman  as  companion  and  housekeeper.  He  set  up  his  house  on  the 
shore  of  Neponset  River,  where  North  Quincy  is  now  located.  Charles 
Francis  Adams,  in  a monograph  of  many  years  ago,4  states  that  one  of 
the  sons  of  Sir  Ferdinando  Gorges  had  a claim  on  the  land  where  the  Puri- 
tans aimed  to  settle,  and  evidence  indicated  that  Gorges  sent  Gardyner 
from  England  as  an  observer  of  Puritan  activities.  John  Winthrop  and 
his  shipload  of  colonists  arrived  a few  weeks  after  the  coming  of  Gardyner. 

For  several  months  Gardyner  lived  quietly  in  his  cabin  home,  keeping 
friendly  relations  with  his  neighbors  and,  according  to  Bradford,  even  of- 
fering to  join  with  them  in  worship.  Nevertheless,  he  was  held  in  suspicion 
by  the  colonial  leaders.  Their  disapproval  came  to  a head  when,  in  Febru- 
ary, 1631,  they  received  a report  about  him  from  England.  They  were  in- 
formed that  Gardyner  had  left  behind  him  in  England  two  wives,  each 
of  whom  was  earnestly  wishing  to  get  him  back  to  her  particular  hearth- 
stone.5 6 Inasmuch  as  he  had  still  another  consort  with  him  in  New  Eng- 
land the  situation  was  felt  to  be  one  that  needed  correction,  and  an  order 
for  his  arrest  was  made.  Gardyner  had  friends,  however,  and  was  warned 
in  time.  As  the  enemy  came  to  view  he  rushed  from  his  cabin,  swam  the 
river,  and  vanished  in  the  woods.  Later,  when  in  England,  he  declared 

Sthat  he  had  been  “driven  to  swim  for  his  life.556  Safe  in  the  forests,  he 
remained  about  a month  “and  traveled  up  and  down  among  the  Indians,” 
as  Winthrop  says.  Then  some  of  the  Indians,  troubled  by  his  presence, 
notified  the  governor  of  New  Plymouth  and  were  told  to  bring  the  wan- 
derer to  town.  They  had  a lively  fight  with  Gardyner  before  they  were 
able  to  club  him  into  submission,  but  they  finally  tied  him  up  and  brought 
him  to  Plymouth  town,  where  he  was  held  until  officers  from  Boston 
came  and  took  him  away.7 

3  Chancery  records,  abstract  in  author’s  possession. 

4  1 Proc.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc .,  xx.  60-88. 

5  John  Winthrop,  Winthrof’s  Journal  “ History  of  New  England ,”  J.  K.  Hosmer, 
Editor  (New  York,  1908),  I.  63. 

6  3 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.y  vm.  321. 

7  Bradford’s  History , 287. 


IO 


The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [feb. 

The  Puritan  leaders  at  Boston  had  intended  to  send  Gardyner  back  to 
England,  but  the  ship  chosen  for  that  purpose  sailed  before  they  brought 
Gardyner  from  Plymouth.  So  he  remained  at  Boston,  or  perhaps  at  his  own 
cabin  at  times.  It  is  mentioned  that  at  one  time  he  was  present  in  court 
and  argued  with  the  magistrate  during  the  course  of  a trial.  While  await- 
ing departure,  letters  to  him  were  relayed  from  Piscataqua,  whereupon  the 
magistrates  seized  them  and  read  them.  Winthrop  says  they  came  from 
Sir  Ferdinando  Gorges,  but  he  abstains  from  telling  their  import.  Finally, 
about  August,  Gardyner  was  allowed  to  sail  for  Maine.  Winthrop  says 
later  that  “he  was  kindly  used  and  dismissed  in  peace,  professing  much 
engagement  for  the  great  courtesy  he  had  found  here.”8  The  next 
twelve  months  must  have  been  unhappy  ones  for  Sir  Christopher.  His  girl 
friend  married  a Maine  colonist,  and  the  long  winter  that  followed  was 
unusually  severe.  It  would  be  interesting  to  know  how  he  passed  the  time, 
but  there  is  no  record  of  it.  Not  until  August,  1632,  was  he  able  to  get 
back  to  England.  He  finally  landed  at  Bristol,  uttering  loud  complaints 
about  the  way  he  had  been  treated.  One  Thomas  Wiggins  wrote  from 
Bristol  to  Boston  that  “an  unworthy  person,  Sir  Christopher  Gardiner,” 
had  arrived  there  and  was  telling  about  swimming  the  river  to  escape  Puri- 
tan malevolence.9 

Except  for  the  unkind  comments  of  Puritan  critics  there  is  nothing  on 
record  about  Gardyner’s  amatory  affairs.  Had  there  been  any  actual  evi- 
dence of  legal  criminality  in  the  way  of  bigamy,  most  certainly  Winthrop 
would  have  recorded  it,  but  evidently  there  was  none.  Wiggins,  in  Bristol, 
had  heard  rumors  about  Gardyner’s  women  and  understood  that  they 
lived  in  London,  knowing  no  more  than  that.  None  of  the  many  refer- 
ences to  Gardyner  from  1624  onward  indicate  that  he  ever  entered  into 
matrimony  a second  time.  He  may  have  been  a gay  widower  but  it  is  most 
unlikely  that  he  was  a bigamist. 

Gardyner  and  two  others  came  before  the  New  England  Council  in 
November  with  requests  for  land  grants  in  New  England.  The  Council 
was  favorable  apparently,  but  it  took  no  action  at  the  time,  or,  so  far  as 
is  known,  at  any  later  date.1  There  is  no  record  that  Gardyner  ever 
tried  to  locate  any  grant  or  to  convey  title.  He  showed  himself  active  in  co- 
operating with  Gorges  and  others  in  trying  to  make  trouble  for  the  New 
England  men.  In  December,  1632,  he  joined  in  a complaint  to  the  privy 
council  alleging  acts  by  them  indicative  of  disloyalty,  the  which  complaint 

8 Winthrop,  of.  cit.}  11.  194. 

9 3 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc .,  VII I.  321. 

1 Proc.  Am.  Antiq.  Soc.,  April  1867,  113. 


1947]  Sir  Christopher  Gardyner  11 

was  duly  considered  by  the  council  and  dismissed  three  or  four  months 
later  as  not  deserving  action.2  One  of  Gardyner’s  companions  in  this 
complaint  was  Thomas  Morton,  whose  New  English  Canaany  a sarcas- 
tic commentary  on  colonial  doings,  mentions  Gardyner’s  experiences. 
Morton  refers  to  him  as  “Sir  Christopher  Gardiner  (a  knight  that  had 
been  a traveler  both  by  sea  and  land;  a good,  judicious  gentleman  in  the 
mathematic  and  other  sciences  useful  for  plantations,  chemistry,  etc.,  and 
also  being  a practical  engineer).”3  Gardyner  contributed  two  bits  of 
verse  to  appear  in  Morton’s  book. 

Morton’s  book  bears  the  date  1637.  In  the  next  year  was  printed  a 
pamphlet  entitled  A T rue  Relation  oj  the  Late  Battell  j ought  in  New  Englandy 
between  the  English  and  the  Pequet  Salvages y with  a Latin  dedicatory  verse 
by  Philip  Vincent.4  This  Vincent  was  a clergyman  who  had  formerly 
been  pastor  of  the  Stoke  D’Abernon  church,  seven  miles  from  Dorking, 
and  he  was  also  a brother-in-law  of  Sir  John  Heydon,  having  married 
Hey  don’s  sister.  So  far  as  is  known,  he  had  no  connection  whatever  with 
New  England  affairs.  Under  the  circumstances  one  must  feel  a strong 
suspicion  that  Sir  Christopher  had  something  to  do  with  the  printing  of 
this  booklet,  although  his  name  nowhere  appears  upon  it. 

So  far  as  one  may  judge  from  brief  glimpses  of  his  life,  Gardyner’s 
tendency  to  roam  was  for  awhile  satisfied  by  his  New  England  experiences, 
and  he  settled  down  at  Haling  Hall  to  the  routine  of  a country  gentle- 
man. In  the  winter  of  1636—1637  he  seems  to  have  had  the  company  of 
his  half-sister  Mary,  wife  of  Sir  John  Heydon,  for  her  baby  was  baptized 
at  Croydon  in  May  following.5  Gardyner  and  Heydon  were  on  very 
friendly  terms.  Letters  from  Gardyner  still  exist,  showing  frequent  con- 
tact and  a common  interest  in  the  crude  chemistry  of  that  day.6  They 
studied  books  together  and  engaged  jointly  in  experimental  efforts  of  their 
own  contriving.  Gardyner’s  letters  of  1637  an<^  are  somewhat  on 

the  style  of  the  old  alchemists,  using  symbols  for  substances  handled  and 
for  methods  of  treatment.  One  vaguely  gathers  from  his  messages  that 
he  was  testing  various  substances  by  application  of  heat  in  different  de- 
grees. His  “vaporing  oven”  and  his  “digesting  oven”  seem  to  have  been 

2 Winthrop,  of.  cit.y  I.  101.  Calendar  of  State  Pafers}  Colonial  Series , 1574— 1660, 
I57* 

3 Thomas  Morton,  The  New  English  Canaan}  Charles  Francis  Adams,  Editor  (Bos- 
ton: Prince  Society,  1883),  338. 

4 3 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.y  vi.  29-43. 

5 John  Corbet  Anderson,  Chronicles  of  the  Parish  of  Croydony  Surrey , 79. 

6 Gardyner  letters,  1637—1638,  photostats  in  author’s  possession. 


1 2 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [feb. 

his  chief  appliances.  One  letter  reveals  that  a substance  tested  came  out 
very  yellow  and  that  it  “did  stinke  much.”  He  then  tried  a more  temper- 
ate heat  and  it  still  came  out  very  yellow  and  “it  gave  a fattish  ill  smell.” 
On  another  occasion  the  experimenters  mixed  two  substances,  which  went 
into  the  vaporing  oven  and  produced  “a  goode  deale  of  green  matter” 
which  Gardyner  dismisses  as  “superfluous.”  The  letters  give  no  hint  of 
what  goal  the  two  scientists  were  trying  to  reach. 

Sir  Christopher  was  not  unmindful  of  his  public  duties.  In  one  of  his 
chemistry  letters  to  Heydon  he  adds  a postscript.  “Here  will  be  a muster 
very  shortly  in  our  Countrie  and  my  Armes  are  at  fault.  I intreat  you  to 
lett  some  of  your  servants  direct  this  bearer  to  a Armorer  to  scowre  and 
repaire  what  is  wanting  in  them  and  that  thay  goe  on  worke  upon  them 
on  Monday  morning  and  dispatch  them  with  as  much  speed  as  may  be. 
The  midle  of  weeke  I will  see  you.  I intreat  you  to  excuse  me.  I am  ac- 
quainted with  noe  Armorer  and  I would  have  them  well  donne  whatso- 
ever they  cost  me.” 

Young  Onslow  Gardyner  was  sixteen  years  old  in  March,  1638,  and  his 
father  had  him  registered  as  a student  at  Cambridge.7  Like  his  father  in 
his  early  years,  however,  the  young  man  seems  not  to  have  remained  there 
long.  In  January,  1641,  a license  issued  to  Christopher  Gardyner  of  Hal- 
ing Hall  and  his  son  Onslow,  both  being  already  beyond  seas,  allowed 
them  to  remain  abroad  three  years.8  But  England  was  now  beginning  to 
seethe  with  political  antagonisms  and  it  would  appear  that  they  soon  re- 
turned. There  is  among  the  English  records  an  undated  and  unsigned 
paper  to  which  has  been  appended  the  name  and  address  of  Gardyner.  It 
may  perhaps  belong  to  this  period.  The  anonymous  writer  offers  his  serv- 
ices to  the  government  for  the  discovery  of  designs  and  plots.9 

In  August,  1642,  the  king  set  up  his  standard  at  Nottingham  and  began 
four  years  of  civil  war  with  parliament.  Sir  John  Heydon,  having  been 
the  king’s  chief  of  ordnance  for  many  years  past,  threw  in  his  lot  with 
the  king  and  became  chief  of  the  artillery.  Gardyner  also  joined  the  royal 
army  and  his  younger  son  Christopher  went  with  him.  Perhaps,  in  the 
mass  of  historical  material  relating  to  the  civil  war,  there  may  be  some 
mention  of  Gardyner’s  military  service,  but  it  is  not  easily  to  be  found. 
All  that  is  available  is  the  probability  that  he  headed  a regiment,  for  in  pe- 
titions of  after  years  he  styles  himself  colonel.  At  the  beginning  of  the  war, 
Gardyner  conveyed  his  Haling  Hall  property  to  his  eldest  son  Onslow,  re- 

7 Venn,  Alumni  Cantabrigienses , 11.  193. 

8 Calendar  of  State  Papers , Domestic  Series , 1640— 1641,  425. 

9 Calendar  of  State  Papers , Domestic  Series , 1627— 1628,  496. 


1947]  Sir  Christopher  Gardyner  1 3 

serving  to  himself  the  use  of  rooms  therein  at  his  pleasure.1  Onslow  seems 
to  have  kept  out  of  the  army,  but  he  did  not  go  unscathed.  His  brother 
Christopher,  heading  a royalist  party,  raided  his  place  in  1643  and  carried 
off  his  horses.2  The  household  at  Haling  Hall  also  included  Lady  Hey- 
don,  for  Sir  John’s  house  at  Trinity  Minories  was  close  to  the  government 
arsenal  and  had  to  be  vacated  when  he  joined  the  king.  These  few  facts 
are  all  that  are  available  in  regard  to  the  Haling  Hall  family.  The  war 
ended  in  1646  with  the  collapse  of  the  royal  cause  and  Colonel  Christo- 
pher was  without  employment. 

The  parliament  government  distributed  penalties  widely  after  the  war 
closed.  Sir  John  Heydon  was  heavily  fined  but  kept  his  realty.  There 
seems  no  mention  of  Gardyner  being  fined  and  he  seems  to  have  retained 
his  real  property.  He  is  mentioned  in  1649  as  stl^  holding  Sondes  Place 
at  Dorking.3 

The  old  friendship  between  Gardyner  and  Heydon  developed  an  open 
rift  in  1650.  Sir  John  was  out  of  office  and  was  not  as  prosperous  as  of 
yore.  With  diminished  resources  he  remembered  the  old  ante-nuptial 
agreement  of  1628  and  started  suit  in  chancery  to  recover  from  Gardyner 
the  sum  of  £600  plus  £500  accrued  interest.4  Heydon  alleges  that  about 
4 August  1642  Gardyner,  “then  and  many  other  times  lodging  and  of- 
ten inhabiting  in  Heydon’s  house”  did,  with  his  sister,  obtain  the  said  con- 
tract and  kept  or  disposed  of  it.  This  seems  to  refer  to  the  time  that  Sir 
John  went  into  the  army  and  his  family  vacated  the  home  at  Trinity 
Minories  in  Middlesex.  Sir  John  says  the  contract  bound  Gardyner  to  pay 
him  £1500  and  interest,  but  that  Gardyner  paid  only  £900  and  that 
amount  came  in  portions.  Gardyner  in  response  said  that  he  had  neither 
Heydon’s  copy  of  the  contract  nor  his  own  and  he  thinks  that  Heydon  has 
gotten  them  “by  some  indirect  means  by  him  used  in  this  defendant’s  ab- 
sence from  his  dwelling  house.”  He  admits  that  he  holds  £400  belonging 
to  his  sister  and  suggests  that  the  court  let  him  retain  it  for  the  better  main- 
tenance of  Mary  and  her  children,  as  Sir  John  has  been  niggardly  in  his 
treatment  of  them.  This  suit  seems  to  have  been  a result  of  a separation 
of  Mary  from  her  husband.  Some  years  later,  when  Heydon  was  ill,  he 
disposed  of  his  estate  by  a written  statement  in  which  he  refers  to  his  wife 

1 Paget,  of.  cit.y  54. 

2 Seventh  Refort  of  the  Royal  Commission  on  Historical  Manuscrifts  (London, 
1879),  686. 

3 Owen  Manning  and  William  Bray,  The  History  and  Antiquities  of  the  County  of 
Surrey , I.  565. 

4 Chancery  records  abstracts,  transcription  in  author’s  possession. 


14  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [feb. 

and  “the  five  children  that  she  deserted.”0  He  provides  property  for  her, 
however,  and  when  he  died  in  1653  s^e  t0°k  over  the  estate  as  adminis- 
tratrix. 

Except  for  the  mention  of  him  by  his  son  Christopher  in  1656  there  is 
no  further  record  of  Gardyner  until  the  restoration  of  the  English  king 
in  1660.  Young  Christopher  appeared  at  Boston  and  wrote  a letter  dated 
2 July  1656  to  the  younger  John  Winthrop,  thanking  him  for  courtesies 
received  and  introducing  himself  with  the  words  “Let  me  give  you  to 
understand  that  I am  son  to  Mr.  Gardyner  (whom  you  were  pleased  to 
mention,  whose  sister  Sir  John  Heydon  married).”  He  sealed  the  letter 
with  the  griffin  passant  of  his  family  arms.5 6  The  writer  states  that  he  is 
“driven  into  these  parts  of  the  world  by  the  sad  misfortune  of  the  times  and 
a very  unhappy  fate.”  Another  letter  by  the  same  writer  exists,  showing 
that  he  had  been  living  in  some  place  where  “cane  tops”  grew,  and  that  he 
was  then  on  his  way  to  join  the  royalist  exiles  who  hovered  about  Prince 
Charles  in  Holland.7 

In  1660  the  exiled  prince  came  back  to  England  to  be  king.  Former 
royalists  then  joined  in  a general  push  for  recognition  and  recompense, 
and  Colonel  Christopher  Gardyner  was  among  them.  In  one  petition  he 
asked  to  be  appointed  keeper  of  records  in  the  Tower  of  London,8  but 
he  did  not  get  that  office.  In  another  petition  of  the  same  year  he  asked  for 
royal  grant  of  the  lease  of  a farm,  because  he  had  been  ruined  in  fortune 
in  the  king’s  cause.9  Apparently  he  attained  results,  for  one  Cowper  pro- 
tested vigorously  against  a royal  order  of  October,  1660,  allotting  to 
Gardyner  a lease  at  Waddon,  presumably  meaning  Whaddon  Manor 
near  Croydon.1 

Paget,  the  historian  of  Croydon,  says  that  Gardyner  died  in  1661. 2 
His  date  is  probably  reckoned  by  the  old-style  calendar,  for  on  1 1 Febru- 
ary 1662  Colonel  Gardyner  petitions  for  an  interest  in  certain  waste 
lands  in  Durham  near  Holy  Island.3  The  true  date  of  his  death  seems 
to  be  February  or  March,  1662,  within  the  old-style  year  1661.  Paget 
mentions  the  former  location  of  the  Gardyner  family’s  burial  vault  and 

5 Testamentary  declaration  1653,  photostat  in  author’s  possession. 

6 5 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.y  1.  381,  plate  13. 

7 Memorials  of  the  Civil  War  comprising  the  Correspondence  of  the  Fairfax  Family , 
Robert  Bell,  Editor  (London,  1849),  H.  138. 

8 Calendar  of  State  Papers , Domestic  Series , 1660— 1661,  104. 

9 Id.y  403.  1 Id.f  600—601. 

2 Paget,  op.  cit.y  54. 

3 Calendar  of  Treasury  Papers , 1660-1667,  328. 


1947]  Sir  Christopher  Gardyner  1 5 

says  no  trace  of  it  now  exists.  Sir  Christopher’s  dust  is  probably  mingled 
with  the  soil  that  he  once  trod. 

In  1642,  when  war  began  Sir  Christopher  had  given  Haling  Manor 
to  his  son  Onslow,  and  Onslow  died  in  1658,  before  his  father.  The 
eldest  son  of  Onslow,  named  Christopher,  then  took  ownership  and  held 
the  manor  for  years,  but  died  at  some  time  prior  to  1678,  whereupon 
the  manor  passed  to  his  brother  William.  It  was  this  William  who  sold 
the  Sondes  Place  residence  at  Dorking  in  1678,  and  who  moved  out  of 
Haling  Hall  to  another  house  in  Croydon.  William  died  in  1688,  still 
holding  ownership  of  Haling  Hall,  which  fell  to  his  son  William,  a boy  of 
thirteen  years.  The  old  house,  however,  had  seen  its  best  days.  In  1696 
it  was  serving  as  a tavern.  Finally  in  1708  William  sold  the  property.  In 
after  years  the  old  house  was  torn  down. 


c 


April  Meeting,  1947 

A STATED  Meeting  of  the  Society  was  held,  at  the  invita- 
tion of  Mr.  Augustus  Peabody  Loring,  Jr.,  at  No.  2 
L Gloucester  Street,  Boston,  on  Thursday,  24  April  1 947, 
at  a quarter  before  nine  o’clock  in  the  evening,  the  President, 
Augustus  Peabody  Loring,  Jr.,  in  the  chair. 

The  records  of  the  last  Stated  Meeting  were  read  and  ap- 
proved. I 

The  President  reported  the  death  on  27  February  1947  of 
Bentley  Wirt  Warren,  a Resident  Member,  and  that  on  28 
February  1947  of  Charles  Francis  Mason,  a Resident  Mem- 
ber. 

The  following  resolution  was  then  read  by  Mr.  Samuel 
Eliot  Morison:  I 

c 

Allyn  Bailey  Forbes 

ALLYN  Bailey  Forbes,  elected  a Resident  Member  of  the  Colonial 
* ^ Society  of  Massachusetts  at  the  April  Meeting,  1931,  was  chosen  by 
the  Council  to  be  Editor  of  the  Society’s  Publications  in  November,  1931. 

After  completing  the  editing  of  Volumes  XXVII  and  XXVIII  [Trans- 
actions] and  Volumes  XXIX  and  XXX  [Suffolk  Court  Records]  which 
were  already  under  way,  Mr.  Forbes  persuaded  the  Council  to  shift  its 
printing  to  the  Merrymount  Press  where,  with  the  aid  of  the  late  Daniel 
Berkeley  Updike,  he  worked  out  a type,  spacing  and  page  by  which  the 
most  complicated  colonial  documents  could  be  printed  in  a typography  of 
outstanding  clarity  and  beauty.  Volume  XXXI  was  the  first  to  be  set  in 
this  new  style.  Three  more  complete  volumes  were  edited  by  Mr.  Forbes, 
and  a fourth,  XXXV,  was  begun  at  the  time  of  his  sudden  and  untimely 
death  21  January  1947.  He  was  also  one  of  the  active  editors  of  the  New 
England  Quarterly  and  contributed  to  it  annually  a valuable  bibliography 
of  the  year’s  publications  on  New  England  history.  In  1934  he  was  elected 
Librarian  and  in  1940  Director  of  the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society, 
and  brought  about  a similar  change  in  the  typographical  style  of  its  pub- 
lications. 

Mr.  Forbes  continued  the  high  standards  of  editing  established  by  his 
predecessors  Albert  Matthews  and  Kenneth  B.  Murdock.  A sound  scholar 
himself,  endowed  with  the  saving  graces  of  humor  and  common  sense,  no 


1947]  Ally n Bailey  F orbes  1 7 

contribution  passed  through  his  hands  without  being  considerably  im- 
proved in  accuracy  and  in  style.  He  was  industrious  in  persuading  members 
to  present  interesting  papers  and  contribute  valuable  documents;  many  of 
the  meetings  arranged  by  him  stimulated  discussion  and  in  turn  led  to 
other  papers.  In  the  Council  his  advice  on  the  prudential  affairs  of  the  So- 
ciety was  highly  valued,  and  by  the  entire  Society  his  genial  companionship 
appreciated. 

The  Most  Reverend  Richard  J.  Cushing,  of  Boston,  the 
Right  Reverend  Norman  Burdett  Nash,  of  Boston,  and  Miss 
Alice  Bache  Gould,  of  Valladolid,  Spain,  were  elected  to 
Honorary  Membership,  and  Mr.  Joseph  Breed  Berry,  of  Bos- 
ton, Mr.  Charles  Henry  Powars  Copeland,  of  Salem,  Mr. 
Sarell  Everett  Gleason,  of  Cambridge,  Mr.  George  Cas- 
par Homans,  of  Cambridge,  Mr.  Mark  DeWolfe  Howe,  of 
Cambridge,  Mr.  Frederick  Milton  Kimball,  of  Andover, 
and  Mr.  Chauncey  Cushing  Nash,  of  Boston,  were  elected 
Resident  Members  of  the  Society. 

The  chair  appointed  the  following  committees  in  anticipation 
of  the  Annual  Meeting: 

To  nominate  candidates  for  the  several  offices, — Messrs.  Wil- 
liam Emerson,  Fred  Norris  Robinson  and  Elliott  Perkins. 

To  examine  the  Treasurer’s  accounts, — Messrs.  F.  Morton 
Smith  and  Hermann  Frederick  Clarke. 

To  arrange  for  the  Annual  Dinner, — Messrs.  Augustus  Pea- 
body Loring,  Jr.,  Samuel  Eliot  Morison  and  Walter  Muir 
Whitehill. 

Mr.  Mark  DeWolfe  Howe  read  a paper  entitled  aThe  Su- 
preme Judicial  Power  in  the  Colony  of  Massachusetts  Bay.” 1 

The  Editor  communicated  by  title  the  following  papers  by 
Professor  G.  H.  Turnbull: 


1 Printed,  with  Louis  F.  Eaton,  Jr.,  as  joint  author,  in  The  New  England  Quarterly , 
xx  (1947))  291-316. 


1 8 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

John  Dury’s  Correspondence  with  the 
Clergy  of  New  England  about 
Ecclesiastical  Peace 

IT  has  long  been  known  that  two  letters  were  sent  from  New  England 
to  John  Dury  about  his  work  for  peace  among  the  churches,  one 
from  John  Norton  and  other  ministers  of  Massachusetts,  the  other 
from  John  Davenport  and  other  ministers  of  Connecticut.  Norton’s 
own  English  translation  of  his  Latin  letter  was  published  in  1664  after 
his  death  as  an  appendix  to  his  Three  Choice  and  Projitable  Sermons;  ex- 
tracts from  the  translation  were  quoted  by  Cotton  Mather  in  his  Mag - 
nalia>  and  the  letter  was  printed  in  full  by  Samuel  Mather  in  his  Apology 
for  the  Liberties  of  the  Churches  in  New  England  in  1 7 3 8 -1 2  Portions  of  Dav- 
enport’s Latin  letter  were  quoted  by  Cotton  Mather  in  his  Magnaliaf 
with  an  English  translation.3 

Matthews  quotes  Cotton  Mather  to  the  effect  that  Norton’s  letter  was 
subscribed  by  more  than  forty  ministers,  and  states  that  it  was  written  be- 
fore 1661,  the  year  in  which  the  Reverend  Ezekiel  Rogers,  one  of  the 
signatories,  died.  Calder  notes  that  the  extracts  from  Davenport’s  letter 
given  by  Cotton  Mather  are  undated,  but  suggests  that  the  letter  may 
have  been  written  in  response  to  the  books  and  papers  sent  to  Davenport 
by  Dury  in  the  summer  of  1660  and  that,  if  so,  it  was  written  after  1 1 
August  1660.4 

Among  Samuel  Hartlib’s  papers5 1 have  found  a copy  of  Norton’s  orig- 


1 Albert  Matthews,  “Comenius  and  Harvard  College.”  Publications  of  the  Colonial 
Society  of  Massachusetts , xxi.  172,  n.  5.  J.  M.  Batten  ( John  Dury , Advocate  of 
Christian  Reunion  [Chicago,  1944],  147,  n.  2)  quotes  part  of  the  translation  from 
Cotton’s  Magnalia. 

2 Matthews,  ibid. 

3 Cf.  Isabel  MacBeath  Calder,  Letters  of  John  Davenport  (Oxford  University 
Press,  1937),  175—176.  In  note  1 to  page  175  she  refers  also  to  A.  B.  Davenport, 
A Supplement  to  the  History  and  Genealogy  of  the  Davenport  Family , in  England 
and  America , from  A.D.  1086  to  1850  (Stamford,  1876),  393—395,  but  it  is  not 
clear  whether  the  whole  of  Davenport’s  letter  is  printed  here,  or  only  the  extracts 
given  by  Cotton  Mather. 

4 She  is  referring  apparently  to  the  date  of  a letter  (given  by  her  on  pages  1 72—1 74) 
from  Davenport  to  Winthrop  mentioning  the  sending  of  papers  and  books  by  Dury 
to  Davenport  and  “the  2 Teaching  Elders  at  Boston.”  The  letter  is  endorsed  as 
received  by  Winthrop  on  11  August  1660,  but  is  dated  11  June  1660. 

n Which  I have  been  permitted  to  examine  by  the  kindness  of  their  owner,  Lord 
Delamere. 


1947]  J°hn  Dury’s  Correspondence  with  Clergy  19 

inal  Latin  letter,  two  copies  of  Davenport’s  letter,  and  a copy  of  a letter 
in  English  to  Dury  from  John  Wilson  and  John  Norton,  dated  Boston, 
19  September  1659.  These  letters  determine  the  dates  of  Norton’s  and 
Davenport’s  letters,  indicate  the  time  at  which  Dury  asked  for  the  opin- 
ions of  the  New  England  clergy,  and  add  other  interesting  details  of  in- 
formation. 

Norton’s  letter  is  dated  19  September  1659  and  is  signed  by  thirty-nine 
ministers,  including  Norton,  and  by  Charles  Chauncy,  President  of  Har- 
vard College,  and  four  Fellows  of  the  College. 

Davenport’s  letter  is  dated  simply  1659  anc^  1S  signed  by  Davenport 
and  ten  other  ministers.  It  begins  by  referring  to  the  receipt  in  the  pre- 
vious year,  i.e.  in  1658,  of  treatises  describing  his  peace  negotiations  which 
Dury  had  sent  to  Davenport  for  the  information  of  the  latter  and  of  other 
ministers  in  New  England.  Near  the  end  it  refers  to  Dury’s  negotiations, 
“undertaken  twenty-nine  years  ago.”6  Comparison  shows  that  Cotton 
Mather  did  not  transcribe  accurately  the  passages  from  Davenport’s  letter 
that  he  published. 

The  English  letter  of  19  September  165 9, 7 signed  by  Norton  and  John 
Wilson,8 9  indicates  that  Davenport’s  letter  was  probably  written  about 
the  same  time  as  Norton’s.  It  also  makes  it  clear  that  Norton  and  Wilson 
had  just  received  from  Dury  a letter,  dated  1 March  1659,  and  some 
printed  matter.  These  may  be  the  letters,  books  and  written  papers  re- 
ferred to  in  Davenport’s  letter  to  Winthrop  of  19  August  16599  an<^  t^ie 
documents  replied  to  in  the  letters  of  Norton  and  Davenport.  They  are 
certainly  noty  as  has  been  erroneously  supposed,1  the  papers  and  books 
mentioned  in  Davenport’s  letter  to  Winthrop  of  1 1 August  1660. 2 Con- 
firmation of  this  view  is,  I believe,  to  be  found  in  another  letter  among 
Hartlib’s  papers,  written  by  Davenport  to  Dury  on  25  June  1660.  In  it 
Davenport  says  he  has  received  Dury’s  letter  of  16  January  and  has  com- 
municated to  some  of  the  “Preaching  Elders  of  the  Plantations  on  the 
Sea  Coasts  neare  Newhaven”3  Dury’s  letter  to  them;  for  which,  and  for 
the  “Intelligence  you  sent  us,”  they  and  Davenport  thank  Dury.  These 


6 Dury  did  in  fact  go  to  England  in  1630  to  begin  his  negotiations  for  ecclesiastical 
peace. 

7 Printed  in  the  Appendix  to  this  article. 

8 One  of  the  signatories  of  Norton’s  letter. 

9 Winthrop  Papers , 11  (1865),  504.J  Calder,  141—143,  who  dates  it  19  June. 

1 E.g.,  by  Calder. 

2 Matthews,  1 71  — 172;  Calder,  172—174,  who  dates  it  11  June. 


3 Cf.  note  4. 


20  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

letters  from  Dury  were  probably  his  answers  to  the  letters  of  1659  ^rom 
Norton  and  Davenport. 


APPENDIX 

Reverend  and  dearest  Sir, 

This  very  afternoone  not  yet  2 houres  since  Septemb.  19.  wee  received  yours 
dated  from  James-house  march  1.  whereby  wee  are  not  comforted  with  your 
remembrance  and  love  alone,  but  allso  with  the  hope  of  your  life,  strength  and 
continued  purpose  to  persevere  in  that  great  service  of  being  an  instrumentall 
publick  peacemaker  which  wee  cannot  but  mention  as  a matter  of  much  joy 
and  thanksgiving;  with  your  letter  allso  wee  have  received  a packet  of  prints 
inclosed,  which  (as  at  this  instant  wee  are  circumstanced)  wee  cannot  peruse 
without  hazard  of  loosing  the  opportunitie  of  sending  by  this  shipp  or  preju- 
dice of  some  other  Duty  incumbent  not  admitting  of  delay.  Bee  pleased  there- 
fore, deare  Sir,  to  accept  of  the  acknowledgment  of  our  debt  in  generall  untill 
a second  opportunitie  may  enable  us  to  send  you  our  acknowledgment  with  the 
enumeration  of  the  particulars  received  from  your  selfe. 

Sir  you  shall  (wee  hope)  receive  herewith  a Latine  letter  (such  as  it  is)  with 
the  hands  of  the  Elders  of  these  parts  subscribed,  their  owne  hands  are  to  the 
Autograph  (two  except,  Mr.  Thompson  and  Mr.  Miller,  of  whome  though 
absent  wee  persumed,  not  without  cause)  the  attesting  of  which  is  the  reason 
of  our  two  hands  subscribing  this  poore  paper.  The  Autograph  it  selfe  is  not 
fit  to  bee  seene  being  foule,  slurred  and  rent:  In  that  it  hath  beene  to  and  fro 
for  the  obtaining  of  hands  in  respect  of  the  subscribers  some  of  them  so  farre 
distanced  in  their  dwellings:  let  it  suffice  their  names  all  faithfully  transcribed 
out  of  the  original. 

Our  hope  was  that  the  same  letter  might  have  beene  subscribed  from  all  the 
Elders  in  N.  England,  in  order  whereunto  wee  sent  unto  Mr.  Davenport  of  N. 
Haven  to  drawe  up  a Letter,  but  he  not  accepting  thereof,  that  service  fell 
amongst  the  elders  of  these  parts.  Mr.  Davenport  himselfe  disiring  in  his  an- 
swere  returned  to  have  it  so,  in  respect  the  greatest  number  were  here-abouts. 
Which  when  it  was  done,  wee  understood  from  Mr.  Davenport  that  hee  judged 
it  rather  eligible  that  two  letters  should  be  sent  unto  yourselfe;  one  from  those 
parts,  a second  from  these,  as  beeing  the  surest  course  to  pervent  delay,  which 
else  seemed  to  threaten  our  difficult  procuring  a generall  subscription  to  the 
same  paper  seasonably  (not  in  respect  of  diversitie  in  apprehension)  but  in  re- 
gard of  the  habitations  of  the  subscribers,  unto  which  proposal  of  his  the  elders 
of  these  parts  readily  consented,  and  this  is  the  reason  of  two  letters. 

Now  the  Prince  of  Peace  preserve  your  life  and  strength,  and  make  your 
service  acceptable  unto  the  saints,  our  desires  and  heartinesse  herein,  you  will, 
wee  hope,  in  some  measure  understand  by  our  letter  to  which  in  that  respect 
wee  at  present  referre  you. 

Sir  the  hope  you  give  us  to  heare  further  from  you,  is  an  encouragement  to 


1947]  Robert  Child  21 

us,  and  with  much  joy  shall  wee  receive  intelligence  from  you,  especially  of 
Gods  further  blessing  upon  your  labours  therein,  our  prayers  wee  owe  unto  your 
pious  labour.  Continue  to  pray  for  and  love  in  Christ  Jesus. 

Boston  Septemb.  19.  Revd.  Sr.  Yours  to  love  and  serve 

1659.  John  Wilson 

John  Norton. 

Wee  shall  the  next  opportunitie  acquaint  the  Elders  with  your  Letter,  love 
&c.  assure  your  selfe  they  will  not  blame  us  for  sending  unto  you  their  most  af- 
fectionate salutations  and  thanckfull  acknowledgments  before  hand. 

For  the  Revd.  and  much  honoured  Mr.  John  Durie, 

Minister  of  the  Gospel 
at  his  lodging  in  James  Howse,  or  elsewhere. 

Robert  Child 

IN  1919  Professor  George  L.  Kittredge  read  a paper  on  Robert  Child 
before  the  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts.1  Since  that  time  much 
additional  information  about  Child  has  come  to  light  in  the  papers 
of  Samuel  Hartlib,  particularly  about  his  first  connection  with  Hartlib, 
his  description  of  the  American  plantations  in  1645,  the  period  of  his  life 
between  his  leaving  New  England  for  England  in  1647  and  ^1S  g°ing  t0 
Ireland  in  1651,  his  stay  in  Ireland  until  his  death  in  1654,  his  acquaint- 
ance with  George  Stirk  and  his  contributions  to  the  three  editions  of  Hart- 
lib’s  Legacy  oj  Husbandry.  This  information2  is  the  main  source  from  which 
has  been  drawn  the  material  for  this  article,  which  may  be  regarded  as  a 
supplement  to  Kittredge’s  paper. 

The  first  mention  of  Child  in  Hartlib’s  papers  occurs  in  an  entry  in  the 
latter’s  Efhemerides  for  1641,  after  13  April,  of  information  from  John 
Pell  that  “Dr.  Child  of  New  Eng  [land]  hase  many  desiderata  and 
thoughts  especially]  about  the  exercises  of  children  how  to  keepe  them 
in  continual  imploiment,”  and  of  Hartlib’s  note  there  that  Pell  and  Mr. 
(Edward)  Ironside  are  “well  acquainted  with  him.”  By  this  time  Child 
had  returned  to  England  from  his  first  visit  to  New  England.3 

To  help  to  fill  the  gap  in  our  information  about  Child  from  October, 
1645,  soon  after  his  return  to  New  England  on  his  second  visit,  to  May, 

1  “Dr.  Robert  Child  the  Remonstrant.”  Publications  of  the  Colonial  Society  of  Mas- 
sachusetts, xxi.  1-146. 

2  I am  indebted  to  Lord  Delamere,  the  owner  of  Hartlib’s  papers,  for  permission  to 
use  them. 

3  Kittredge,  op.  cit.y  7-8. 


22 


The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

1646,  when  his  Remonstrance  comes  to  light,  there  is  a long  letter4  from 
him  to  Hartlib,  written  from  Boston  on  24  December  1645,  describing 
the  plantations  on  the  eastern  seaboard  of  America,  and  incidentally  giv- 
ing his  opinion  of  the  religious  situation  in  them,  including  New  England 
itself,  which  is  interesting  in  the  light  of  the  controversy5  which  was  so 
soon  to  flare  up  round  himself  and  his  fellow-remonstrants. 

According  to  Kittredge,6  Child  sailed  from  New  England  for  Eng- 
land before  12  September  1647.  Hitherto  little  has  been  known  of  his 
history  between  that  time  and  his  going  to  Ireland  in  1651  except  what 
could  be  gleaned  from  his  letters  to  John  Winthrop  the  younger  of  13 
May  1648  and  26  August  1650  and  the  latter’s  letters  to  him  of  25  Octo- 
ber 1647  aRd  23  March  1648/49. 7 Hartlib’s  Efhemerides  for  the  years 
1648—1651,  however,  supply  much  additional  information  which  may 
now  be  summarized. 

In  1648  Hartlib  recorded  that  Child  knew  someone  in  Kent  who  had 
discovered  a means,  until  then  unknown,  “for  slitting  of  iron,”  and  that 
Child  wished  a library  to  be  erected  and  a botanical  garden  to  be  provided 
in  every  county,  and  physicians  to  meet  to  compare  “their  knowledges  and 
experiences.”  He  told  Hartlib  that  there  was  a great  deal  of  “real  phi- 
losophy” in  the  sermons  that  Matthaesius8  had  written  on  “the  metallic 
subjects”  in  the  Scriptures,  that  Dr.  Mayerne  was  going  home  to  Geneva, 
and  that  some  of  its  members  had  resolved  to  ask  the  College  of  Physi- 
cians in  London  to  erect  a laboratory,9  “in  which  all  chymical  medecins 
may  the  better  bee  prepared,  every  doctor  taking  his  turne  to  attend  it.” 
He  also  told  Hartlib  of  the  large  numbers  of  beef  cattle  sold  yearly  in  the 
Bermudas  after  being  fattened  on  fennel,  “which  grows  very  long,”  and 
of  the  great  quantities  of  figs  there,  of  which  a drink  or  mead  is  made,  and 
he  advocated,  as  the  best  things  for  advancing  husbandry  in  England,  the 
improvement  of  pasturage  and  the  growth  of  more  wheat  and  its  protec- 
tion from  blight. 

4 The  original  letter,  torn  and  eaten  away  badly  in  places,  and  two  copies,  one  in- 
complete, the  other  corrected  by  Hartlib  himself,  have  been  found  among  Hartlib’s 
papers.  The  full  text  of  the  original,  restored  as  far  as  possible,  is  given  in  the 
Appendix. 

5 Described  by  Kittredge,  of.  cit.,  1 7—9 1 . 

6 Of.  cit .,  63. 

7 Kittredge,  of.  cit.,  60,  92,  93,  98,  99,  125,  129— 132.  The  letters  of  13  May  1648 
and  23  March  1648/49  are  printed  in  Winthrof  Pafers , V,  1645— 1649,  Massa- 
chusetts Historical  Society  (Boston,  1947),  221—223  and  324. 

8 Johann  Mathesius  (1504—1565),  minister  to  a mining  community  in  Joachimsthal, 
Bohemia,  published  a collection  of  sermons  called  Sarefta  oder  Bergfostille. 

9 An  entry  in  1649  gives  the  information  from  Child  that  this  had  been  done. 


Robert  Child 


1947] 


23 


There  are  many  entries  concerning  Child  in  the  Ephemerides  for  1649. 
He  told  Hartlib  of  hooks:  of  a 1646  edition,  published  at  Padua,  of  Nico- 
las Papin’s  “rare”  book,  De  Pulvere  Sympathetico  Dissertation  which  he  lent 
to  Hartlib  “for  a few  houres”;  of  a “very  choice  and  rare  chymical  book,” 
which  he  names  variously  as  Idaea  Idaearum  O pcratricum  and  Idaea  Oper- 
arum  O peratricumy  printed  at  Prague  and  to  be  had  in  St.  Paul’s  Church- 
yard for  seven  shillings;2  of  the  books  of  new  and  old,  retried  experiments 
made  for  “a  vice-roy  of  Naples  a D.  of  Doussy  or  some  such  name,”3 
some  copies  of  which  escaped  burning  at  the  hands  of  the  Jesuits  and  were 
obtained  by  “one  Kirton”;  of  his  being  engaged  in  “transcribing”  out  of 
Low  Dutch  into  English  the  “best  pieces”  of  Isaac  Hollandus,  such  as 
“de  quinta  essentia4  with  many  others  never  published,”  and  of  his  wish 
that  all  the  chemical  treatises  of  Englishmen,  of  which  the  library  at  Ox- 
ford had  a great  store,  might  be  printed  together  in  one  volume;  and, 
early  in  November,  of  the  “great”  work  De  Generatione  to  be  published 
“shortly”  by  Dr.  Harvey.5 6  In  March  he  was  retiring  for  half  a year  to 
try  “Carmehels1’  chymical  traditions,”  was  expecting  his  books  and  “nat- 
urals” out  of  New  England,7  and  desired  to  have  the  instruments,  of 
Helmont’s  own  making,  for  easy  injection  into  the  bladder  for  the  stone. 
He  informed  Hartlib  that  there  was  a rich  silver  mine  in  Wales,  much 
spoiled,  however,  if  not  destroyed,  by  the  “late  warres,”  and  that  some 
antimony  was  to  be  found  in  Staffordshire;  that  near  Salisbury  a grass, 
“good  for  many  things,”  grows  as  tall  as  a man  and  is  mown  thrice  a 


1 J.  Ferguson,  Bibliotheca  Chemica , 2 vols.  (Glasgow,  1906),  II.  167,  does  not  give 
this  edition. 

2 Not  in  Ferguson,  of.  cit.y  and  not  yet  identified. 

3 Perhaps  Frangois  du  Soucy,  of  whose  Sommaire  de  la  medicine  chymique  Child 
had  a copy}  cf.  W.  J.  Wilson,  “Robert  Child’s  Chemical  Book  List  of  1641,”  Jour- 
nal of  Chemical  Education y xx.  127,  number  33,  and  Ferguson,  of.  cit.y  11.  388. 

4 I do  not  find  this  in  Ferguson. 

0 Published  in  1651. 

6 Carmihill,  a Scotsman,  is  mentioned  in  one  of  Sir  Cheney  Culpeper’s  letters  to 
Hartlib  in  connection  with  the  menstruum  universale  or  Alkahest}  but  he  has  not 
yet  been  identified.  He  may  be  the  “freind  in  Scotland,  who  hath  perfected  Helmont’s 
menstruum  and  made  many  excellent  experiments  by  it  for  transmutation,”  of  whom 
Child  writes  to  John  Winthrop  the  younger  in  his  letter  of  13  May  1648  from 
Gravesend}  Winthrof  Pafersy  v.  222. 

' An  entry  in  1650,  probably  written  in  February,  says  that  his  library  “of  many 
selected  books”  had  come  from  New  England.  A list  of  his  chemical  books,  drawn 
up  in  1641,  is  given  in  Winthrof  Pafersy  IV.  334—338,  and  is  exhaustively  anno- 
tated by  Wilson,  of.  cit.y  126—129,  where  item  no  should  perhaps  read,  not  “Bor- 
nellii,”  as  suggested  by  Professor  Jantz,  but  “Burnetti,”  or  “Bornetti,”  i.e.,  Burnet, 
for  whom  see  Ferguson,  of.  cit.y  1.  133. 


24  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

year,  and  that  on  the  making  of  glass,  which  is  still  very  defective  in  Eng- 
land, there  is  an  excellent  little  treatise  in  Italian,  De  Arte  Vitraria ,8  of 
which  Dr.  Merret  has  a copy,  which,  if  translated,  would  cost  only  three 
or  six  pence.  He  said  that  John  Tradescant  was  willing,  for  an  annuity 
of  £100,  to  sell  his  chamber  of  rarities,  most  of  which  were  represented 
“very  lively”  in  a book,  and  his  botanical  garden,  which  together  were 
really  worth  more  than  £1,000,  and  to  let  his  son  continue  to  look  after 
the  garden,  as  he  had  been  brought  up  to  do,  thereby  saving  the  cost  of 
employing  someone  else;  that  Parliament  should  purchase  them  and  that 
the  rarities  and  garden  might  be  given  to  the  University  of  Cambridge, 
which  might  thereby  “outstrip  Oxford  in  their  bookish  library”;9  and 
that,  moreover,  Dr.  Bate1  was  offering  £400  towards  a botanical  gar- 
den. He  expressed  the  wish  that  “the  Histone  of  all  incurable  diseases 
may  bee  accurately  recorded  from  y[ear]  to  y[ear]  by  some  in  the  Col- 
ledge  of  Physitians.”  He  became  acquainted  with  Thomas  Henshaw  and 
gave  Hartlib  information  about  him,  including  the  fact  that  he  “exercises 
hims[elf]  in  Chymistry.” 

Belonging  to  1649  there  is  also  an  interesting  letter  among  Hartlib’s 
papers,  written  by  William  White,  an  expert  miner,  who2  seems  to  have 
been  left  stranded  by  Child’s  departure  from  New  England  in  1647,  anc^ 
who  wrote  on  24  July  1648  to  the  elder  John  Winthrop,  on  leaving 
New  England  for  the  Bermudas  with  William  Berkeley,  a letter  in  which 
he  gives  as  one  of  his  reasons  for  leaving  that  Child  had  covenanted  to 
pay  him  five  shillings  a day  and  to  let  him  have  two  cows  and  a house 
rent-free  and  land  for  himself  and  his  children,  but  that  the  covenants 
had  not  been  carried  out,  “to  my  great  loss.”  In  the  letter,3  written  on 
8 May  16494  and  unaddressed  but  without  doubt  to  Child,  White,  far 
from  reproaching  Child,  as  one  might  expect  from  his  letter  to  Win- 
throp, writes  warmly  wishing  Child  were  with  him  in  the  Bermudas, 
telling  him  of  the  great  possibilities  of  the  place  in  land  unused  that  could 

8 By  Antonio  Neri.  Christopher  Merret  translated  it  for  the  Royal  Society  in  1662. 

9 The  collection  of  rarities  ultimately  went,  through  Elias  Ashmole,  to  the  Uni- 
versity of  Oxford. 

1 It  is  probably  he  of  whom  Hartlib  records:  “Dr.  Bates  about  Canterbury  a pretty 
man.  An  acquaintance  of  Mr.  Worsley  and  Dr.  Child.  The  15  of  Dec[ember]  1649 
hee  was  the  first  time  at  my  house.”  I am  not  sure  if  George  Bate  is  the  man  referred 
to. 

2 According  to  Kittredge,  of.  cit.y  63,  n.  3. 

3 There  is  also  a list  of  “Mr.  White’s  inventions,”  which  include  stoves,  stills  and 
furnaces,  and  are  no  doubt  those  of  this  William  White. 

4 He  writes  from  Spanish  Point,  Barbados,  but  his  references  are  undoubtedly  to  the 
Bermudas. 


Robert  Child 


19471 


25 


grow  sugar  and  tobacco,  in  fishing  and  oysters,  minerals  and  the  growing 
of  fruit,  especially  figs  for  the  distillation  of  aqua  vitae  and  for  sale  after 
being  dried,  urging  him  to  come  out  there  because  of  the  troubles  in 
England,  and  saying  that,  in  that  event,  if  his  wife  should  die,  “I  will 
place  out  all  my  children  and  travel  with  you  till  I dye.”  Mr.  Berkeley, 
he  adds,  importunes  Child  to  join  them  and  promises  him  the  best  possible 
entertainment. 

Hartlib’s  Efhemerides  for  1650  contain  many  entries  about  Child.  On 
30  January  he  took  Henshaw  to  visit  Hartlib  for  the  first  time,  and  to 
see  the  copy  of  Selenographui,  which  its  author,  Hevelius,  had  sent  for  the 
University  of  Oxford.  Henshaw’s  father,  now  dead,  was  “a  great  chy- 
mist,”  and  “so  is  his  mother  who  is  yet  alive.”  Henshaw  had  a laboratory 
and  a German  “laborator,”  and  claimed  to  have  the  Alkahest,  among  the 
manuscripts  belonging  to  Sir  Hugh  Plat  which  he  had,  and  which  Child 
had  seen,  being  one  inscribed  “Helmont’s  Altahest”;  Helmont,  when  he 
was  in  England,  having,  it  seems,  in  Child’s  words,  been  acquainted  with 
Plat.  Child  was  trying  to  form  “a  chymical  club”  with  Henshaw,  Webbe 
(presumably  Joseph),  Vaughan  and  others,  which  would  collect  “all 
Englfish]  Phil  [osophical]  bookes  or  other  chymists”  and  all  manuscripts, 
would  translate  them  and  publish  them  in  one  volume,  and  would  make 
all  philosophers  acquainted  with  one  another  and  “oblige  them  to  mutual 
communications.”  5 In  Child’s  view,  Henshaw’s  library  of  chemical  books 
and  manuscripts  was  second  only  to  that  of  Dr.  Fludd  of  Maidstone, 
which  contained  some  “choice”  manuscripts  of  John  Dee  and  Robert 
Fludd,0  his  kinsman,  and  of  which  Child  had  taken  a catalogue.  La  Maison 
Rustique y most  of  which  had  been  taken  from  Serres,8  had  been  trans- 


5 Later  in  the  year  Child  told  Hartlib  that  Henshaw  was  about  to  put  into  practice 
“a  model  of  [a]  Christian  Learned  Society”  (referring-  to  J.  V.  Andreae’s  Chris- 
tianae  Societatis  Imago , translated  in  1647  by  John  Hall  as  “A  Modell  of  a Chris- 
tian Society”)  by  joining  with  six  friends  “that  will  have  all  in  common,  devoting 
thems  [elves]  wholly  to  devotion  and  studies,  and  separating  thems  [elves]  from  the 
world,  by  leading  a severe  life  for  diet,  apparel  etc.  Their  dwelling-house  to  bee 
about  6 or  seven  miles  from  London.  They  will  have  a Laboratorie  and  strive  to  do 
all  the  good  they  can  to  their  neighbourhood.”  Child,  Obadiah  Walker  and  Abra- 
ham Woodhead  were  to  be  members,  and  so,  too,  we  may  presume,  were  Joseph 
Webbe  and  Thomas  Vaughan,  who  was  writing  his  “Philosophia  Adamica”  ( Magia 
Adamica , Ferguson,  of.  cit .,  II.  196)  at  this  time,  according  to  Child.  This  is  the 
group  mentioned  by  Child  in  his  letter  of  26  August  1650  to  the  younger  Winthrop; 
see  Kittredge,  of.  cit.,  99. 

6 Child  went  to  see  Dr.  Fludd  at  Maidstone  in  1650,  and  took  Elias  Ashmole  there 
in  1651  (Kittredge,  of.  cit.,  100)  ; but  it  is  most  unlikely  that  Child  knew  Robert 
Fludd  {ibid.,  129),  for,  if  he  had,  Hartlib  would  certainly  have  mentioned  the  fact. 
' By  Charles  Estienne,  completed  by  Jean  Liebault;  published  in  1554. 

8 Perhaps  Oliver  de  Sevres,  whose  Theatre  d* A griculture  (Paris,  1600)  is  mentioned 


2 6 


The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

lated  into  English  as  The  Country  Farm / but  the  husbandry  described  in 
it  was  not  so  suitable  for  England.  Palissy’s  works,1  Child  thought,  should 
also  be  translated  into  English.  In  the  library  at  Oxford  the  smaller  pam- 
phlets had  been  collected  and  bound  up  together  into  one  volume,  with 
the  result  that  not  more  than  one  or  two  of  them  were  noted  in  the  cata- 
logue. He  reported  that  one  Johnson,2  the  “laborator”  to  the  College  of 
Physicians,  was  said  to  have  the  book  called  Helfs  for  suddain  Accidents , 
that  Carrichter’s3  books  had  been  translated  into  English  and  were  being 
printed,  and  that  the  son  of  Dr.  Dorislaus4  had  translated  “all  Glau- 
b[er].”  He  commended  Kentmannus5  De  Metallisz  and  considered  it  of 
great  use  for  the  art  of  teaching.  The  author  of  Virg.  Virgo  Triumf.,6  he 
said,  promised,  towards  the  end  of  the  book,  a treatise  concerning  saw- 
mills. In  regard  to  sawmills  he  also  said  that  Richard  Leader,7  who  had 
a good  estate  at  Limerick  in  Ireland  and  the  first  house  of  brick  ever  built 
there,  was  taking  his  brother  to  New  England  with  him  to  superintend 
the  sawmills  he  had  invented,  which  would  supply  “boards  and  deales” 
to  Limerick,  not  more  than  eight  hundred  leagues  away,  where  they 
were  needed.  Leader  had  invented  a means  of  cutting  through  cold  iron 
“of  an  hand  brea[d]th”  and  a way  of  making  iron  hoops  and  bars  “with 
fewer  men  and  greater  dispatch,”  a device  for  making  iron  bolts  easily, 
after  the  manner  of  drawing  wire,  and  better  than  hitherto,  and  an  “ex- 
in the  third  edition  of  Hartlib’s  Legacy,  253 ; but  in  that  case  Child’s  statement 
seems  unacceptable. 

9 Maison  rustique , or,  the  Countrie  fame,  translated  by  R.  Surflet,  appeared  in 
1600;  a revised  edition,  by  Gervase  Markham,  with  additions  from  French,  Span- 
ish and  Italian  authors,  was  published  in  1616. 

1 Bernard  Palissy  (d.  1590),  the  French  potter.  Mersenne,  writing-  to  Theodore 
Haak  on  10  December  1639,  sa-id  that  Palissy  had,  like  Gabriel  Plattes,  written  a 
book  on  minerals,  waters,  etc.,  which  had  been  published  in  1580,  and  that  Palissy 
“a  de  fort  belles  choses  et  est  plaisant  a lire”;  later,  he  sent  this  and  possibly  other 
books  by  Palissy  to  Haak  for  Plattes  and  Haak  to  look  at.  Hartlib  seems  to  be  re- 
ferring to  Mersenne’s  opinion  of  Palissy  in  a letter  of  10  August  1640  printed  by 
D.  Masson,  Life  of  John  Milton,  7 vols.  (London,  1859—1894),  in.  217. 

2 Probably  William  Johnson,  for  whom  see  Ferguson,  of.  cit.,  11.  449. 

3 Bartholomaeus  Carrichter.  No  English  translation  of  his  works  is  listed  in  the 
British  Museum  Catalogue. 

4 Isaac  Dorislaus  the  younger;  I know  of  no  translation  of  Glauber  by  him. 

5 The  British  Museum  Catalogue  gives  Johann  Kentman:  N omenclaturae  rerum 
fossilium , 1 565,  in  C.  Gesner,  De  omni  rerum  fossilium  genere. 

6 Meaning  apparently  Virginia,  Virgo  Triumfhans.  A book  about  Virginia,  with 
the  title  Virgo  Triumfhans,  by  Edward  Williams,  appeared  in  1650. 

7 Leader  had  first  gone  to  Massachusetts  in  1645  to  manage  iron  works  in  which 
Child,  John  Winthrop  the  younger  and  others  were  financially  interested;  Kitt- 
redge,  of.  cit.,  index  under  Leader. 


Robert  Child 


1947] 


27 


cellent”  new  kind  of  weighing-scale.  Leader  also  commended  a wine 
made  of  cherries,  sugar  and  water  of  which  he  had  promised  the  recipe 
to  Child,  and  another  made  of  cider  and  perry.  Child  told  Hartlib  that 
on  9 April  he  had  met  “a  new  man  of  Experiments  and  Art,”  named 
Marshall,  who  had  “a  whole  chamber  of  insects”  and  was  very  skilful  in 
drawing,  painting  and  representing  objects.  He  also  gave  Hartlib  much 
information  about  the  history,  abilities  and  achievements  of  George  Stirk,8 
whom  Hartlib  met  on  the  Exchange  for  the  first  time  on  1 1 December. 
Child  had  much  to  tell  Hartlib  about  husbandry  of  various  kinds.  His 
brother9  and  cousin  were  planting  a nursery  of  pear  trees  “a  mile  from 
Greenwich,”  and  had  already  got  more  than  forty  kinds  from  different 
parts  of  England,  of  which  Child  had  given  Hartlib  a catalogue;  they 
intended  to  plant  a nursery  of  apple  trees  in  the  following  year.  He  told 
Hartlib  of  “an  excellent  designe  of  great  profit  that  should  bee  tried  in 
Engl  [and]  described  in  a little  Tr[eatise]  called  Instructions1  for  the 
increasing  of  Mulberie  Trees  and  the  breeding  of  Silke-worms  for  the 
making  of  silke  in  this  kingd[om]”;  this  husbandry  had  not  been  known 
or  described  by  any  of  the  ancient  writers  such  as  Varro  or  Columella, 
but  had  been  brought  from  Italy  to  Paris;  Child  himself  had  “a  great 
minde  to  set  upon  this  experiment,”  and  Henshaw  had  a “choice”  book 
about  silkworms.  He  recommended  the  “husbandry  of  bees”  as  “an  ex- 
cellent way  of  enriching,”  saying  that  it  would  bring  about  £100,000  a 
year  into  England,  and  also  recommended,  as  the  foundation  of  good 
pasturage  and  therefore  of  husbandry,  more  study  of  all  sorts  of  grass, 
including  the  English  kinds  which  had  been  accurately  described  in  the 
commendable  Phytologia2  lucerne,  recently  introduced  into  France  from 
that  place,  “as  is  supposed,”  and  growing  there  better  than  any  they  have, 
and  sainfoin,3  brought  into  England  from  France  by  the  Duke  of  Lennox 
and  growing  “exceeding  well”  on  his  lands.  He  regarded  the  Earl  of 
Thanet,  for  a nobleman,  as  one  of  the  greatest  husbandmen  in  Kent, 


8 I hope  to  write  a separate  article  on  Stirk,  about  whom  Hartlib’s  papers  contain 
much  new  and  valuable  information. 

9 Probably  John,  for  some  information  concerning-  whom  see  later,  and  also  Kitt- 
redge,  of.  cit index.  Child  judged  him  in  1650  to  have  become  one  of  the  best  hus- 
bandmen in  the  whole  of  England. 

1 William  Stallenge  wrote  “Instructions  for  the  increasing  of  Mulberie  trees  and 
breeding  of  silke-wormes,”  published  in  1609.  Child  mentions  him  in  the  Legacie , 
first  edition,  72,  but  says  the  book  is  out  of  print. 

2 William  Howe’s  Phytologia  Britannica , published  anonymously  in  1650. 

3 Both  lucerne  and  sainfoin  are  dealt  with  in  Child’s  “large  letter”  in  Hartlib’s 
Legacie. 


2 8 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

keeping  no  idle  servant  about  him  and  providing  himself  excellently  “with 
all  manner  of  gardens.”  He  did  not  think  the  growing  of  grain  could  be 
improved  in  England  unless  the  commons,  “which  are  pretended  for  the 
good  of  the  poor  but  make  them  live  basely,  poorly  and  idly,”  were  all 
put  into  gardens  and  enclosures,  thereby  maintaining  twice  as  many  peo- 
ple; but  he  thought  that  acre  for  acre  England  would  maintain  as  many 
people  or  more  than  France,  an  acre  about  Paris  being  worth  commonly 
six  shillings  and  six  pence.  He  promised  to  get  Hartlib  an  Italian  recipe 
for  preserving  mackerel  in  oil  and  spices  for  many  months,  which  “should 
be  followed  by  good  oeconomical  English  Families,”  and  declared  that 
the  best  way  to  increase  the  eating  of  fish  was  to  encourage  the  fishing- 
trade  to  make  it  plentiful  and  cheaper  than  meat,  and  not  to  pass  laws 
compelling  people  to  eat  it. 

Other  subjects  about  which  information  from  Child  was  recorded  in 
the  Efhemerides  for  1650  were  cures,  inventions,  experiments,  doctors, 
and  members  of  the  Universities,  as  the  following  brief  account  shows. 
One  Woodward,4  an  illiterate  Billingsgate  shopkeeper,  after  suffering 
grievous  torments  and  trying  in  vain  all  kinds  of  physicians,  cured  him- 
self of  gout,  and  then  many  others,  including  an  old  woman  of  Canter- 
bury known  to  Child,  by  means  of  a remedy  he  found  in  a book  on  physic 
bought  casually  for  sixpence  from  a woman  who  came  to  his  door.  A poor 
mechanic  in  Kent  invented  an  “excellent”  device  for  polishing  looking 
glasses,  but  was  with  difficulty  saved  from  hanging  for  making  keys  to 
open  locks.  A way-waser  made  by  “Alten  the  instrument-maker”  cost 
fifty  shillings,  but  Robert  Boyle  had  a special  one  bought  in  Italy  or 
France.  Child  intended  to  make  an  inventory  of  all  chambers  of  rarities 
with  Dr.  Merret,  whom  he  commended  for  “mechanical  endeavours  and 
industries.”  William  Oughtred’s  son  was  an  excellent  maker  of  watches 
and  their  cases,  and  sold  one  for  £5  to  Henshaw,  who  said  it  was  the  best 
he  had  ever  seen.  Child  wished  that  Sir  Hugh  Plat’s  invention5  for  taking 
away  smoke  from  London  might  be  perfected  and  introduced,  and  so 
make  the  city  healthier  and  fuel  cheaper.  Dr.  Heigenius6  having  told 
Haak  that  a mixture  of  goose  grease  and  something  which  Haak  had  for- 
gotten would  keep  the  body  from  all  cold,  so  that  Dr.  Heigenius  needed 
to  wear  nothing  but  thin  linen  in  the  coldest  weather,  Child  said  that  fish 

4 The  name  is  given,  from  Child,  as  Wadwood  elsewhere  in  the  Efhemerides. 

5 His  coal-balls,  according  to  his  A new,  cheafe  and  delicate  Fire  of  Cole-balles 
(London,  1603),  8.  Plat  had  mentioned  this  invention  briefly  in  The  Jewell  House 
of  Art  and  Nature  (London,  1594),  69—70. 

6 Not  Christian  Huygens  5 possibly  his  father,  Constantyn. 


Robert  Child 


>9471 


29 


oil  had  the  same  effect  and  was  used  by  the  natives  of  New  England.  Dr. 
Savine  of  Canterbury,  whose  father  had  died  and  left  him  nearly  £20,000, 
had  resigned  his  practice  and  was  devoting  himself  entirely  to  experi- 
ments,7 for  which  he  wanted  a German  gardener.  “Dr.  Charlet8  be- 
comes very  fantastical,  and  Dr.  Child  feares  that  hee  will  fall  madde.” 
Child  recommended  the  herb  “calaminta”  taken  as  a posset9  as  an  infal- 
lible cure  for  fevers  and  agues,  and  an  amulet  of  toads,  hung  on  the  pit 
of  the  stomach,  as  mentioned  by  Helmont  and  seen  in  an  old  manuscript 
by  Child,  against  the  plague.  He  believed  that  recipes  and  medicaments 
that  have  more  of  Art  (or  artificial  compoundings)  than  of  Nature  in 
them  are  “to  bee  suspected  to  be  the  worst,”  and  that  the  fewer  the  sim- 
ples or  ingredients  are,  the  better.  He  affirmed,  and  Boyle  and  William 
Petty  agreed,  that  physicians  hitherto  had  achieved  better  skill  to  know 
and  discern  diseases  than  to  cure  them.  The  Italian  physicians,  he  said, 
“physick”  sick  people  handsomely  rather  than  cure  them;  and  Ireland, 
according  to  some,  had  produced  as  many  good  physicians  as  Italy,  Irish 
physicians  being  much  commended  by  Helmont,  and  usually  one  mem- 
ber of  every  great  Irish  family  becoming  a physician;  their  many  rare 
recipes  are  preserved  and  imparted  from  one  family  to  another.  Of  the 
English  universities,  Child  affirmed  that  their  members  are  generally  bet- 
ter disciplined  and  more  godly  than  those  in  foreign  ones,  that  they  study 
as  hard  or  more  than  those  oversea,  being  bound  by  orders  to  rise  at  4, 
that  they  cannot  abide  that  anyone  should  visit  them  in  the  morning,  and 
that  in  every  college  there  are  to  be  found  many  exquisite  in  school  di- 
vinity, or  Aristotle’s  philosophy  or  metaphysics;  “but  because  they  are  so 
retired  and  noncommunicative,  and  because  they  do  not  write  and  print 
so  much  as  other  Universities  doe  by  way  of  vaporising  therefore  they  are 
misjudged.” 

Child  left  England  for  Ireland  in  1651,  and  the  last  of  the  entries 
about  him  in  Hartlib’s  Efhemerides  for  that  year  occurs  between  12  Feb- 
ruary and  10  April.  These  entries  give  more  information  about  Stirk’s 
previous  history  and  present  activities,  record  Child’s  undertaking  to  tell 


7 “As  of  muskmellons  etc.  etc.”  The  word  is  not  so  spelt  in  the  Efhemerides , but  as 
“mashmillons.”  Hartlib  may  have  meant  muskmelons,  which  Child  wished  to  see  in- 
troduced into  England  from  New  England  j Kittredge,  of.  cit.,  107. 

8 In  1650  Dr.  John  French  mentioned  him  to  Child  as  “my  learned  friend,  and 
your  experienced  fellow-traveller.”  Walter  Charleton  may  be  meant. 

9 Elsewhere  in  the  Efhemerides  Hartlib  quotes  Child:  “The  herbe  called  Cardomin 
[Cardamine,  presumably]  beaten  to  powder  and  drunk  in  beer  or  posset  hath  done 
most  wonderful  cures  of  the  falling  sickness.” 


30  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

Hartlib  more  about  sainfoin  and  the  grass  grown  near  Salisbury,1  state 
his  view  that  the  abele  tree2  is  perhaps  the  same  as  the  sycamore  or  great 
maple,  and  tell  about  four  men,  Elias  Ashmole,  Dr.  Currar,  Anthony 
Morgan  and  William  Howe.  Captain  Ashmole,  as  he  is  called,  is  de- 
scribed as  one  of  Child’s  acquaintances  and  much  acquainted  with  Mr. 
Lilly,3  “a  very  ingenious  man,”  one  “that  was  before  with  the  Parlia- 
ment” and  that  “offers  to  maintaine  about  him  [one]  that  can  draw,  ex- 
periment etc.”  He  married  “a  rich  lady  of  some  ioo  a y[ear],”4  is  “set- 
ting out  Theatrum  Chymicum5  of  Englfish]  Philosophers,”  and  has 
contrived  a way  for  removing  fleas  from  his  house,  which  Child  promises 
Hartlib  he  will  learn  more  fully  from  Ashmole.  Dr.  Currar,  who  had 
been  physician  to  Lord  Inchiquin6  before  the  latter  “wheeled  about,”  had 
collected  a number  of  Irish  medicines  and  much  information  about  the 
natural  history,  especially  the  mines,  of  Ireland,  but  the  collections  had 
fallen  into  the  hands  of  one  Dr.  Harding,  “one  of  the  commissioners  at 
Corke,”  from  whom  Currar  could  not  get  them  back;  but  Child  hoped 
to  “hnde  favor,”  and  thus  presumably  retrieve  them.  Morgan  Child  de- 
scribes as  one  of  “the  best  Herbarists  for  Englfish]  plants,”  who  is  mak- 
ing a public  botanical  garden  “neere  the  booling  greene  or  alley  at  West- 
mfinster],  giving  5 lb.  for  rent  a y[ear]  and  having  27  y[ears]  interest 
in  it”;  with  him  in  the  enterprise  are  William  Howe,7  Stanley,  an  apothe- 
cary, and  a third  whose  name  Child  has  forgotten. 

Child  landed  in  Ireland  from  England  on  20  May  1651  and  remained 
there  until  his  death,  which  occurred  between  February  and  May,  1654.8 
For  Child’s  life  during  this  period  Hartlib’s  papers  supply  two  main  sources, 
his  letters  to  Hartlib,  of  which  there  are  twelve,  ranging  from  1 August 
1651  to  8 October  1653,  and  entries  in  Hartlib’s  Efhemerides  for  these 
years,  the  information  from  which  may  now  be  summarized. 

His  first  letter,  of  I August  1651,  was  written  from  the  house  of  Colo- 
nel Arthur  Hill  at  Lisneygarvey,9  sixty-eight  miles  from  Dublin,  and 

1 Already  mentioned  above  under  1649  an(f  *650,  respectively. 

2 Parts  (e.g.,  115—116,  116—117)  of  the  third  edition  of  Hartlib’s  Legacy  (1655) 
deal  with  abele  trees.  Child  accepted  {ibid.,  150)  Boate’s  correction  {ibid.,  123) 
that  the  abele  is  Poftilus  alba. 

3 William  Lilly,  presumably. 

4 An  entry  in  the  Efhemerides  for  1655  says  that  Ashmole  “dwels  not  far  from  Mr. 
Brewerton  [William  Brereton]  in  whose  county  [Cheshire]  he  married  his  wife.” 

5 Cf.  Ferguson,  of.  cit.,  1.  52. 

6 Murrough  O’Brien  (1614— 1674),  who  declared  for  Charles  I in  1648. 

7 See  n.  2,  p.  27.  8 Kittredge,  of.  cit.,  122. 

s Lisnagarvy,  now  Lisburn,  is  in  County  Down,  a few  miles  southwest  of  Belfast. 


Robert  Child 


1947] 


3i 


was  received  by  Hartlib  on  20  August,  having  been  sent  by  the  hands  of 
Mr.  Howard,  a merchant.  Child  was  in  good  health  but  uncertain  wheth- 
er he  would  remain  in  Ireland  and  whether  “the  country  aire,  which  is 
hurtfull  to  our  English  bodys  would  agree  with  mine.”  He  enclosed  Hart- 
lib’s  letter  in  one  to  Ashmole,  hoping  the  latter  would  deliver  Hart- 
lib’s  “with  his  owne  hand,  that  you  may  be  acquainted  with  him,  for  I 
scarce  know  any  man  of  a more  publicke  spirit,  and  at  this  time  acteth 
much  for  to  advance  it;  perhaps  some  books  at  St.  James1  may  be  usefull 
for  him.”  Child  had  gathered  seeds  of  some  Irish  plants  which  he  would 
send  for  Morgan  with  his  next  letter,  and  also  had  various  insects  for 
Marshall,2  who  “should  do  well  to  publish  his  experiences”  on  insects. 
He  sent  his  “love  and  service  to  John  Dury,  Benjamin  Worsley3  and 
Boyle,4  “if  he  be  with  you.” 

The  second  letter,  dated  Lisneygarvey,  13  November  1651,  was  not 
received  by  Hartlib  until  3 February  1652.  Child  hoped  that  the  Isle  of 
Man  having  been  reduced5  a regular  correspondence  with  London  would 
be  possible  and  suggested  that  Hartlib  should  send  his  letters  through 
Matthew  Locke,  sometime  servant  to  Colonel  Hill  but  now  with  Secre- 
tary Roe,6  with  whom  Worsley  was  well  acquainted.  He  had  received  no 
replies  to  the  letters  he  had  already  sent,  and  indeed  not  “a  syllable” 
from  anyone,  so  that  he  was  like  “an  exile  banished  from  all  commerce 
with  my  ingenuous  freinds  and  acquaintance,”  and  if  he  could  not  hear 
from  his  friends  in  London  he  would  be  “discouraged  from  writing,  and 
shal  not  with  quietnes  remayne  here.”  He  has  no  news,  for  if  anything 
were  done  fifty  or  sixty  miles  away,  London  knew  of  it  before  him, 
there  being  no  passing  between  Lisneygarvey  and  Dublin  without  a strong 
convoy  of  horse,  because  the  woods  were  full  of  rogues.  With  the  letter 
he  sent  for  Morgan  fifty  or  sixty  kinds  of  Irish  plants — not  rare  plants, 
but  perhaps  half  a dozen  of  which  might  not  be  commonly  known  in 


1 John  Dury  was  at  this  time  library-keeper  at  St.  James’s  Palace.  Ashmole  was 
about  to  print  “some  ould  Ms.  of  Chymistry,”  according-  to  Child’s  letter  of  13 
November  1651  to  Hartlib. 

2 In  the  Legacie , first  edition,  68  (the  second,  but  the  proper  page  68)  Child  men- 
tions Marshall,  “who  hath  3.  or  400  Insects,  and  can  give  a very  good  account  of 
their  original  feedings.” 

3 Hartlib  made  Worsley  and  Child  known  to  each  other  early  in  1648. 

4 Boyle  did  not  go  to  Ireland  until  16525  T.  Birch,  Works  of  the  Hon.  Robert 
Boyle , 6 vols.  (London,  1772),  1.  L. 

5 Under  the  Earl  of  Derby  it  had  been  a nest  of  Royalist  privateers  which  had  hin- 
dered traffic*  it  surrendered  on  31  October  1651. 

6 William  Rowe,  secretary  to  the  Irish  and  Scottish  Committees  of  the  Council  of 
State. 


3 2 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

England;  he  would  gather  more  the  next  year  and  share  any  rare  ones 
with  Morgan.  He  wished  Hartlib  to  become  acquainted  with  Morgan, 
“an  ingenuous  man,”  with  Humphrey  of  York-garden7  and  with  Mar- 
shall,8 “who  can  give  the  best  account  of  insects  of  any  in  England,” 
and  to  whom  he  would  send  all  sorts  of  insects  which  he  had  gathered  in 
Ireland,  if  only  he  knew  how  to  send  them.  Hartlib  was  to  direct  anyone 
who  wished  to  send  Child  seeds  or  anything  else,  how  to  do  so.  Child  and 
others  had  been  trying  experiments  in  husbandry,  especially  the  draining 
of  bogs  to  make  excellent  land;  in  1652  they  hoped  to  experiment  with 
“wadd  [woad],  hops,  hemp,  flax,  setting,  howing  etc.”  He  wished  to  re- 
vise his  “discourse  of  Husbandry,”9  “for  you  know  in  what  hast  I wrote 
it,”  and  to  know  what  Glauber  and  other  “ingenuous”  men  in  Germany 
were  doing. 

The  date  of  the  third  letter,  also  from  Lisneygarvey,  has  been  torn, 
but  it  was  written  on  the  26th,  probably  of  February,  and  in  1651/52, 
and  sent  through  Royden,  a goldsmith,  who  was  to  deliver  it  with  his  own 
hands  and  also  relate  fully  how  things  were  with  Child  and  “with  these 
north  parts,”  and  who  was  to  bring  back  to  Child  whatever  Hartlib  de- 
livered to  him.  Child  wished  Hartlib  to  return  three  books  left  with  him 
by  Child,  “if  you  use  them  not”;  one,  a small  book,  “wherin  is  the  pat- 
terne  for  an  Hopgarden,”  and  two  Dutch  books  about  engines.  Also,  he 
wanted  a copy  or  two  of  his  “large  letter”  for  revision  and  enlargement, 
“if  it  be  worth  the  reprinting.”  He  and  others  were  trying  to  promote  the 
growing  in  Ireland  of  flax,  hops,  sainfoin,  Flanders  clover-grass,  and 
woad,  to  plant  all  sorts  of  fruits  and  to  understand  “the  nature  and  pro- 
priety” of  the  native  plants.  He  had  found  great  difficulty  in  deciding 
whether  to  settle  in  Ireland,  “because  the  Ayre,  especially  in  winter,  doth 
not  very  well  agree  with  me,  and  because  I am  out  of  the  road  of  ingen- 
uous men,  and  cannot  as  yet  heare  from  my  friends  and  kindred  concern- 
ing my  private  affaires;  furthermore,  as  yet  I am  very  idle,  for  Coll  Hill 
with  whom  I soiourne  is  not  as  yet  at  home,1  but  the  next  summer  re- 

7 “The  Gardiner  of  Yorke  garden”  is  mentioned  in  Child’s  letter  of  1 March 
1644/45  t0  ffie  younger  Winthrop  ( Winthrof  Pafers , V.  11)  ; Evelyn  (Diary, 
ed.  Wheatley,  4 vols.  [London,  1879],  11.  79)  mentions  this  garden  as  being  in  the 
Strand  and  having  belonged  to  the  Duke  of  Buckingham. 

8 Hartlib,  in  May,  1654,  hoped  “shortly  to  be  acquainted”  with  Marshall ; Birch, 
of.  cit .,  VI.  85. 

9 His  “large  letter,”  which  formed  the  bulk  of  Samuel  Hartlib  his  Legacie;  Turn- 
bull,  Hartlib , Dury  and  Comenius  (University  Press  of  Liverpool,  1947),  97,  num- 
ber 37. 

1 In  his  first  letter  of  1 August  1651  Child  said  that  Colonel  Hill  had  “scarce  lyen 
3 nights  in  his  house”  since  Child’s  arrival  in  May. 


Robert  Child 


1947] 


33 


moveth  to  an  house  which  he  is  building;  but  I have  almost  digested  these 
crudityes,  and  the  winter  being  past,  which  hath  bin  could  and  tempes- 
tuous 1 1 1 begin  more  and  more  to  affect  settlement  here.”  He  might  re- 
turn the  next  summer  to  England  to  see  his  friends;  “otherwise  I cannot 
promise  my  selfe  much  leisure  these  many  yeares.”  He  asked  Hartlib  for 
“the  newes  from  all  parts,”  what  works  Glauber  had  lately  published, 
what  new  designs  there  were  in  husbandry  and  how  public  businesses 
were  proceeding;  he  had  seen  in  a newsbook  that  Dr.  French  had  trans- 
lated a work  by  Glauber.2 

On  1 1 March  1651/52  he  wrote  again  from  Lisneygarvey,  saying  that 
he  had  at  last  received,  about  ten  days  before  his  last  letter  was  written, 
“a  few  lines”  from  Hartlib  written  on  15  December.  He  was  sending  this 
letter  by  Mr.  Burgh,  a gentleman  who  was  Hartlib’s  neighbor,  his  father 
living  in  the  Strand  “nigh  St.  Martins  lane  at  the  Beare  and  ragged 
Staffe.”  Child  was  in  good  health,  “though  at  present  people  begin  to  be 
sickly,”  and,  being  likely  to  stay  in  Ireland  for  some  time,  wanted  to  have 
a constant  correspondence,  which  might  be  established  soon,  “when  the 
passages  to  Dublin  are  cleared.”  Plans  were  being  made  to  blow  up  Gal- 
way, and  “there  is  very  great  hopes  of  finishing  the  warre  totally  this  next 
summer.”  Child  “could  have  wished,  that  I had  seene  my  letters  which 
I wrote  to  you  before  it  had  bin  reprinted,”3  but  was  glad  that  it  was 
so  much  esteemed  as  to  be  thought  worth  reprinting.  He  would  take  no- 
tice of  the  husbandry  of  Ireland  and  endeavor  to  set  things  right  there; 
flax  grew  well  in  the  north  and  was  the  main  interest,  but,  if  they  could 
get  seed,  they  would  sow  clover,  which  might  be  very  useful  and  profitable 
in  England  too.  Three  or  four  Dutchmen  had  come  over  to  plant,  and 
he  hoped  they  too  would  grow  clover.  He  could  not  give  an  exact  account 
of  the  passage  in  his  “large  letter”  about  honey4  until  he  had  seen  it 
again,  but  he  knew  that  pure  honey,  or  sugar,  gently  boiled  in  pure  water, 
then  well  skimmed  and  cooled,  and  afterwards  “set  to  working”  with 
barm,  made  a liquor  which  some  people  with  good  palates  had  mistaken 
for  Greek  wine.  He  hoped  that  Glauber,  who  had  promised  various  things 


2 Glauber’s  Philosophical  Furnaces  (London,  1651),  translated  by  John  French; 
see  Ferguson,  of.  cit.y  1.  293. 

3 His  “large  letter”  in  the  second,  1652,  edition  of  Samuel  Hartlib  his  Legacy. 

4 Cf.  Legaciey  first  edition,  68— 69:  “I  know  that  if  one  take  pure  neate  honey  and 
ingeniously  clarify  and  scum  and  boile  it,  a liquor  may  be  made  not  inferiour  to  the 
best  sack,  muscadine  etc.  in  colour  like  to  rock-water,  without  ill  odour  or  savour; 
so  that  some  curious  Pallates  have  called  it  Vin  Greco,  rich  and  racy  Canary,  not 
knowing  what  name  to  give  it,  for  its  excellency.  . . . An  excellent  drinke  not  unlike 
this  may  be  made  of  Sugar,  Molossoes,  Raisins,  etc.” 


34  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

of  this  kind,  “and  I suppose  is  most  able  to  accomplish  them,”  would 
make  them  more  clearly  manifest  “for  the  good  and  comfort  of  these 
northern  countryes.”  He  regretted  that  he  had  not  gone  to  see  Mr.  Wes- 
ton5 and  his  Flanders  husbandry  at  Guildford,  for  “it  would  be  very  use- 
ful in  these  parts.”  He  asked  how  the  handmill  for  grinding  corn  was 
thriving  and  said  it  would  not  at  present  be  of  importance  for  Ireland, 
which  “wants  neither  wind  nor  water”  for  mills,  and  where  handmills 
were  not  permitted,  “leste  the  State  should  be  couzened  thereby,”  there 
being  an  excise  of  sixpence  a bushel  on  all  wheat  and  barley  ground.  He 
was  sorry  to  hear  of  Ashmole’s  sickness  and  would  be  glad  to  see  finished 
two  or  three  “peeces”  which  Ashmole  was  busy  with  when  Child  left 
England,  viz.,  John  Tradescant’s  rarities,  and  “our  ould  English  Phi- 
losophers.”6 He  hoped  that  Morgan,  Humphrey  and  especially  Marshall 
would  be  useful  to  the  public,  and  said  that  he  would  write  only  to  Hart- 
lib  until  he  heard  whether  his  other  friends  were  alive  or  dead.  He  sent 
his  “love  and  service”  to  Webbe  and  Stirk. 

Child  did  not,  however,  escape  the  sickness  of  which  he  had  written 
to  Hartlib  on  1 1 March,  for  his  next  letter,  a very  brief  one  written  on  8 
April  1652,  began,  “though  I am  so  weake  that  I can  scarce  hould  pen  in 
hand,”  and  ended,  “truly  I have  bin  even  at  the  gates  of  death,  and  yet 
am  not  throuly  got  out.”  He  had  received  the  “much  desired  packet” 
from  Hartlib  through  Mr.  Royden;  it  must  have  contained  the  second 
edition  of  Hartlib’s  Legacy , for  Child  went  on  to  say  that  there  were  er- 
rata in  his  “letter,”  though  only  superficial  ones,  and  that  the  annotator7 
had  alluded  to  all,  and  added  some  of  his  own.  He  entreated  Hartlib  to 
get  Stirk  to  write  a line,  asked  to  see  all  Glauber’s  works,  if  possible,  and 
hoped  that,  if  Morgan  was  sending  him  any  seeds,  they  would  arrive  in 
time. 

On  23  June  he  wrote  again,  saying  that  when  he  last  wrote  he  “was 
newly  crawled  up,”  but  was  now  “in  perfect  health.”  He  will  soon  an- 
swer the  “Annotations”  of  Dr.  Boate,  whom  he  thanks  for  his  pains,  and 
will  correct  also  some  errata  which  Boate  had  missed.  If  his  “large  letter” 
is  to  be  printed  for  the  third  time  Hartlib  should  let  him  know,  so  that 
he  may  “add  some  things,  and  rectify  what  is  amisse,  both  in  the  first  and 
second  edition,  which  last  seemeth  to  be  more  imperfect  than  the  for- 

5 Sir  Richard  Weston,  who  died  in  1652,  and  whose  Discours  of  Husbandrie  used  in 
Brabant  and  Flanders  was  published  by  Hartlib  in  1650;  second  edition,  1652. 

6 See  n.  49  for  his  Theatrum  C hemicum.  He  assisted  John  Tradescant  the  younger 
in  the  preparation  of  his  book,  Museum  Trade scantianumy  published  in  1656. 

7 Arnold  Boatej  cf.  Kittredge,  of.  cit .,  108. 


1947]  Robert  Child  3 5 

mer.”  He  is  gathering  “stubble”  for  the  “Alphabet”8  which  he  has  re- 
ceived from  Hartlib.  A bag  of  seed  has  come  to  him,  he  supposes  from 
Morgan,  but  without  any  letter.  He  is  resolved  to  stay  where  he  is  and  to 
give  Hartlib  the  best  account  he  can  of  those  parts  and  to  try  some  experi- 
ments of  husbandry;  the  Irish  are  surrendering,  Sligo  being  their  last 
garrison  of  importance,  and  there  are  great  hopes  that  soon  “all  things 
will  be  in  peace  and  quietnes”;  the  seas  have  been  cleared  of  pirates.  He 
would  like  to  hear  from  friends  such  as  Dr.  Currar,  presents  his  service 
to  Sir  Cheney  Culpeper,9  and  asks  what  Glauber  is  doing  and  what  other 
things  in  husbandry  are  coming  forth,  because  husbandry  is  beginning  to 
flourish  very  much  in  his  part  of  Ireland  and  men  wish  to  see  books  on  it. 
The  English  in  Ireland  are  very  busy  draining  bogs,  which  become  the 
best  land;  anything  more  by  Blith,1  therefore,  about  draining  will  be 

“very  acceptable.”  1160373 

In  his  next  letter  of  29  August,  taken  to  Hartlib  by  Mr.  Burgh,  he 
said  that  he  received  a line  or  two  sometimes  from  Hartlib,  but  from 
scarcely  any  other  friend,  though  he  writes  to  them.  He  had  received  the 
previous  week  a packet  from  Hartlib  with  the  two  Dutch  books  about 
engines  and  some  of  Glauber’s  works.  He  had  not  yet  been  able  to  recover 
his  copy  of  the  Natural  History  oj  Ireland , which  he  had  lent  out,  every- 
one in  the  place  wanting  to  perfect  husbandry  and  there  being  “scarce 
any  place  in  Ireland,  where  men  are  more  active  in  fencing,  drayning, 
dunging  and  liming  their  land.”  If  Dr.  Arnold  Boate  were  willing  to 
undertake  to  complete  his  brother  Gerard’s  Natural  History  oj  Ireland j 
Child  would  help,  knowing  that  Boate’s  experience  was  greater  than  his 
own,  “for  my  abode  here  hath  bin  but  a little  while,  neither  have  I any 
time  travelled  far,  because  the  Hand  is  as  yet  unsetled  ...  I can  give  a 
considerable  account  of  the  plants  which  grow  naturally  in  the  woods  and 
which  are  in  the  garden,  I have  bin  able  to  draw  a century  or  two  of 
them,  . . . what  stones  and  earth  and  mines  are  in  these  northerne  parts  I 
have  somewhat  observed,  I have  likewise  taken  notice  of  the  customes  of 
the  Irish  and  English  and  Scots,  and  some  politick  observations,  concern- 
ing the  settlement  of  Ireland,  I hope  shortly  to  draw  them  up  in  some 


8 “The  Alphabet  of  Interrogatories,”  of  25  pages,  which  comes  after  “An  Inter- 
rogatory relating  more  particularly  to  the  Husbandry  and  Naturall  History  of  Ire- 
land” in  the  1652  edition  of  Hartlib’s  Legacy. 

9 Whom  he  had  got  to  know,  through  Hartlib,  early  in  1648. 

1 Walter  Blith.  The  third  impression,  “much  augmented,”  of  his  The  English  Im- 
prover, or  a New  survey  of  Husbandry , was  published  at  London  in  1652. 

2 For  a second  edition,  the  first  having  been  published  in  1652}  Turnbull,  of.  cit ., 
100,  number  41. 


36  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

order,  and  by  the  next  opportunity  to  send  them  to  you.”  He  hoped  that 
his  “cousin  Long  sometimes  visited  Hartlib.” 

Writing  again  on  23  November,  he  acknowledged  a letter  from  Hart- 
lib  of  7 August,  but  said  he  had  not  received  other  letters  mentioned  by 
Hartlib,  for  he  knew  nothing  of  Worsley’s  “intentions”3  and  had  re- 
ceived no  questions  “till  these  4 last,  to  which  I cannot  at  present  returne 
an  answeare.”  Worsley  and  Petty  (the  latter  of  whom  is  mentioned  by 
him  for  the  first  time4)  are  in  Dublin  and  well,  but  he  has  not  heard  from 
them.  Colonel  Hill  is  in  London,  so  that  Child  can  give  Hartlib  little 
account  of  Sir  Hugh  Stafford’s  notes.5  He  encloses  amendments  for  his 
“large  letter,”  if  it  is  reprinted,  and  a sheet  “in  answeare  to  the  animad- 
verser”;  “the  other  part”  is  ready,  but  not  yet  written  out  fair;  if  Hartlib 
finds  mistakes  in  it,  he  is  to  return  it.  He  may  see  London  in  the  summer; 
“this  place  and  I do  not  very  well  agree,  the  winters  are  troublesome  to 
me,  and  I am  troubled  that  I am  in  a corner  of  the  world,  where  is  little 
ingenuity  in.” 

The  next  letter,  written  from  Lisneygarvey  on  2 February  1652/53, 
is  a very  long  one.  Child  had  never  received  Hartlib’s  letters  of  29  March 
and  20  April,  which  came  when  he  was  ill  and  were  stopped  by  some  of 
his  friends  at  Dublin,  so  that  he  cannot  tell  what  the  41  questions  were 
that  Hartlib  had  wished  him  to  answer,  and  which  he  would  have  tried 
to  answer,  though  Hartlib  knows  well  how  unfitted  he  is  to  do  so,  being 
where  he  has  little  help  from  books  or  friends,  so  that  he  must  write 
“quicquid  in  buccam  venerit.”  Hartlib’s  letter  of  6 August  he  had  re- 
ceived and  answered,6  and  he  had  also  received  from  Hartlib  “2  Ger- 
maine bookes  Glaubers  opus  minerale.”7  He  will  now  keep  a more  con- 
stant correspondence  with  Hartlib,  because  Worsley,  from  whom  he  had 
lately  had  two  letters,  had  promised  to  enclose  Child’s  letters  to  Hartlib 
in  the  state  packet.  He  has  some  “stubble”  to  send  for  the  Natural  History 
oj  Ireland,  when  it  is  wanted.  In  his  Appendix8  Arnold  Boate  had  been 
able  to  add  much  in  respect  of  plants,  animals,  etc.,  to  remedy  the  de- 
ficiencies he  had  noted  in  his  brother  Gerard’s  “History”;  when  Arnold 

3 Probably  his  appointment  as  Secretary  to  the  Commissioners  for  the  Affairs  of  Ire- 
land; see  Kittredge,  of.  cit.,  120,  n.  2. 

4 Though  he  had  known  Petty  since  at  least  as  early  as  May,  1648;  Kittredge,  of. 
cit.,  98. 

5 He  is  referred  to  as  Sir  Edward  in  the  next  letter. 

6 On  23  November  1652;  in  that  letter  he  acknowledged  a letter  from  Hartlib  of 

7 August,  not  6 August;  but  see  n.  82. 

7 Cf.  Ferguson,  of.  cit.,  I.  326. 

8 To  the  second  edition  of  Hartlib’s  Legacy,  apparently. 


Robert  Child 


1947] 


37 


has  added  his  own  observations,  as  Child  supposes  he  intends  to  do,  Child 
will  see  if  he  can  add  “a  mite  or  two.”  The  copy  of  the  “Natural  History” 
which  Hartlib  had  sent  him,  Child  had  lent,  after  reading  it  over  once 
and  “but  slightly,”  to  a doctor  in  the  neighborhood,  and  could  not  get 
it  back,  the  doctor  saying  he  had  already  returned  it.  He  thought  the  book 
contained,  for  the  most  part,  descriptions  of  harbors  and  havens,  and  he 
could  not  censure  it  much,  though  he  had  smiled  when  it  spoke,  in  one 
place,  of  Mouse  Hill  for  Sir  Moses  Hill,9  the  father  of  Colonel  Hill.  He 
had  now  heard  from  Petty,  and  was  glad  he  had  arrived  in  that  part  of 
Ireland;  Child  expected  to  be  in  Dublin  for  the  most  part  of  the  sum- 
mer because  Colonel  Hill  was  returning  there  “for  a long  season.”  Of 
himself  Child  said:  “What  is  naturall,  either  plants,  earth,  stones,  min- 
erals, I endeavour  to  know;  and  also  what  fame  or  superstition  doth 
make  more  than  naturall,  I do  observe.”  He  had  desired  Petty,  “though 
I suppose  it  needles  to  desire  him  who  is  curious,”  to  note  whatever  was 
worth  observing,  “that  we  may  by  little  and  little  perfectly  understand 
these  parts”;  for  there  are  some  things  in  these  places  “worth  a Philo- 
sophical pen.”1  Child  himself  thinks  about  these  matters,  but  only  when 


9 Cf.  Kittredge,  of.  cit.,  121. 

1 Hartlib  embodied  most  of  the  things  in  Ireland  “worth  a philosophical  pen”  in 
his  letter  of  8 May  1654  to  Boyle  (Birch,  of.  cit.y  vi.  84).  His  account  there  is 
worth  comparing  with  the  following  which  Child  wrote  in  his  letter  of  2 February 
1 6 52/ 53  to  him:  “there  are  some  things  worth  a philosophical  pen  in  these  places 
viz.  how  it  cometh  to  passe,  that  here  are  not  frogs,  toads,  snakes,  neither  moale,  nor 
nightingales,  rarely  magpyes,  and  how  some  kinds  of  fowles  and  beasts,  we  have 
not  in  England,  as  diverse  hawkes,  Cockes  of  the  wood,  Pintayles,  wolves,  black 
foxes,  greyhound  wondrous  large,  as  also  diverse  plants,  viz.  maccamboys,  sunaman 
maine[?],  cane  apples,  also  diverse  fishes,  further  to  enquire  what  truth  there  is 
concerning  generation  of  barnacles,  which  much  abound  here,  what  vertue  in  the 
mosse  of  a dead  mans  skull,  how  it  grows — also  what  vertue  in  St.  Patricks  well, 
about  1 6 miles  from  hence,  as  also  of  diverse  things  which  the  Irish  foolishly  report 
of  Saint  Patrick,  also  it  were  worth  the  while,  strictly  to  examine  their  petrifying 
fountaynes,  which  abound  in  these  parts,  whither  they  transmute  all  woods,  or  only 
holly,  as  is  commonly  reported : whither  turfe  doth  grow,  how  much  and  how,  also 
concerning  diverse  lies,  in  one  of  which  its  reported  a dog  will  not  live,  and  a 
woman  cannot  have  children  in — also  of  Lakes,  some  of  which  are  accounted  bot- 
tomless, another  at  certaine  times  casting  forth  yellow  amber — also  concerning 
stones  like  birds,  which  they  say  St.  Patrick  turned  into  stone  for  chirping,  when 
he  was  preaching.”  Many  of  these  “things”  were  listed  in  the  “Interrogatory  re- 
lating more  particularly  to  the  Husbandry  and  Natural  History  of  Ireland,”  ap- 
pended to  the  second  edition  of  Hartlib’s  Legacy.  Cf.  Kittredge,  of.  cit.y  115—116 
and  122,  n.  2.  Sir  Thomas  Browne  referred  several  times  in  his  writings  to  the 
(supposed)  absence  of  venomous  creatures  in  Ireland ; in  his  Pseudodoxia  Efidemica 
(first  published  in  1646),  Bk.  VI,  Chap.  VII,  he  referred  particularly  to  the  absence 
of  frogs,  toads  and  serpents 3 see  his  Works , ed.  S.  Wilkin,  3 vols.  (London,  1852), 
11.  79. 


3 8 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

he  hears  from  Hartlib,  and  since  he  cannot  think  of  settling  in  Ireland, 
and  letters  seldom  come  to  him,  “I  let  such  thoughts  as  soone  dy,  as  they 
are  born,  and  hope  some  other  will  undertake  such  things,  and  indeed 
lazines  doth  much  possesse  me,  methinks,  its  best  to  be  quiet.”  He  was 
sorry  to  hear  of  Stirk’s  indisposition  and  to  learn,  from  a short  letter 
from  him,  of  his  misfortunes  and  of  his  having  to  leave  St.  James’s,  and 
he  urged  Hartlib  and  Dury  to  give  Stirk  some  good  advice.  He  had  re- 
ceived one  of  Blith’s  books,  sent  by  Hartlib,  and  is  glad  that  Dr.  Currar 
thrives  in  London,  “for  the  man  is  reall  and  honest  to  his  freind[s],  and 
a very  good  chymist”;  he  remembers  Currar  telling  him  that  his  library, 
containing  many  manuscripts  concerning  Irish  medicines,  was  in  the 
hands  of  a minister  in  Cork  belonging  to  the  Army,  whose  name  was  not 
known  to  Child,  but  could  be  learned  by  Hartlib  from  Currar  himself. 
Irish  physicians  and  surgeons,  in  Child’s  opinion,  were  generally  illiter- 
ate; but  they  knew  and  used  constantly  in  decoction  some  plants  that 
grow  in  Ireland  and  had  recipes,  obtained  from  their  predecessors,  for 
most  diseases,  many  of  which  Child  had  collected  but  could  not  recom- 
mend “till  experience  confirme  the  truth.” 

Child  then  turned  to  answer  Hartlib’s  letter  of  7 August,2  which  had 
come  with  ten  books,  than  which  “scarce  any  thing  is  more  welcome  to 
me”;  he  rejoiced  that  husbandry  and  chemistry  were  flourishing  so  much 
and  that  clover  grass  was  being  sown  everywhere  “with  wonderful  en- 
crease.”  According  to  Colonel  Hill,  Sir  Edward  Stafford’s  project,  of- 
fered not  publicly  but  only  in  discourse  among  his  friends,  was  about 
copper,  not  tin  mines,  and  Child  supposes  that,  if  it  is  of  such  great  im- 
portance as  Hartlib  says  it  is,  the  Colonel  will  not  have  it  commonly  di- 
vulged, “for  ...  he  is  very  chary  of  his  secrets”;  besides,  though  he  is  un- 
willing to  censure  any  man  that  is  thought  ingenious,  Child  does  not  ad- 
mire Stafford’s  manuscripts,  some  of  which  he  has  read,  as  Colonel  Hill 
does,  but  regards  them  as  “speculations.”  He  hopes  Mr.  Thicknes  of 
Maulden,  whom  he  loved  very  much  for  his  ingenuity,  is  not  dead.  An- 
other letter  from  Hartlib  of  7 August,  sent  through  Mr.  Locke,  with 
fifteen  questions,  he  has  never  received.  He  does  not  need  Glauber’s  book 
in  Latin,  as  he  understands  it  as  well  in  High  Dutch  and  “the  translatour 
may  more  fade  than  I shall.”  As  for  Hartlib’s  friends  thriving  by  means 
of  Glauber’s  books  on  minerals,3  Child,  who  has  read  them  lately,  can- 

2 He  says  he  received  this  letter  on  the  day  after  his  letter  of  23  November  was  writ- 
ten. His  reference  in  that  letter  to  Hartlib’s  letter  of  7 August  (see  n.  77)  must 
therefore  be  a mistake  for  6 August. 

3 See  n.  78. 


1947]  Robert  Child  3 9 

not  believe  that  Glauber  will  reveal  the  Alkahest  to  anyone,  “though 
perhaps  they  may  get  some  particulars  from  him,  which  may  sufficiently 
enrich  a moderate  spirit.”  He  hopes  to  try  a wonderful,  rich,  iron  stone, 
found  in  the  neighborhood,  when  Colonel  Hill  moves,  in  two  or  three 
months’  time,  into  his  own  house  about  four  miles  away,  where  there  will 
be  more  convenience  for  the  trial  of  minerals  and  for  the  advancement  of 
husbandry.  He  can  say  nothing  about  Dr.  Higgins,4  who  was  hanged  at 
Limerick,  which  is  too  far  off  for  him  to  have  heard  as  yet,  but  Petty  and 
Worsley,  who  are  so  much  nearer,  could  probably  tell  Hartlib  of  his 
cures. 

Child  next  answers  Hartlib’s  letter  of  9 October  1652.  He  would  like 
to  know  who  Silvanus  Taylor  is  and  what  good  there  is  in  the  book5 6 *  that 
he  has  written  about  enclosing  commons  and  preserving  timber.  Child 
assents  to  the  first  part  of  the  comment  of  Hartlib’s  friend  on  Hartlib’s 
four  questions,0  but  doubts  that  sal  martis 7 is  the  chalybs  of  Sendivogius.8 

IA  better  method  than  Mr.  Bacon’s  of  sowing  haws  is  to  hoe  them  in,  but 
haws  are  of  little  value,  because  enough  of  them  can  be  got  from  the 
woods  at  four  pence  a hundred.  He  dislikes  putting  fruit  trees  into  hedges 
and  does  not  know  what  use  would  be  made  of  so  much  barberry;  he 
commends  rather  plum  trees  or  paschnuts  [?],  as  they  do  in  Kent,  or 
sweetbriar  for  pleasantness;  but  every  man  has  his  own  way,  for  reasons 
best  known  to  himself,  and  Child  commends  every  man  that  is  ingenious. 
He  has  shown  elsewhere9  that  the  unbarking  of  boughs  of  trees  in  July 
and  putting  earth  on  them  to  make  new  trees  is  rather  a way  of  spoiling 
good  trees,  for  the  boughs  to  be  unbarked  are  principal  branches,  the  trees 
they  grow  into  are  small,  poor  and  not  worth  planting,  and  trees  like  the 
Kentish  codling  and  sweeting,  and  all  boyny  [?  ] or  trees  with  knots,  will 
grow  very  well  “without  all  this  ceremony”;  in  his  brother’s  orchard 
near  Gravesend,  grafted  codlings  are  six  times  bigger  than  those  grown 
from  slips.  The  ordinary  husbandry  of  the  chalk  lands  of  Kent,  which 
extend  sixty  miles  from  London  to  Dover,  is  not  to  ridge  the  ground  but 
to  plough  and  harrow  cross  continually,  and  to  lay  not  dung,  but  only 

4  He  was  executed  after  the  surrender  of  Limerick  on  27  October  16515  S.  R.  Gar- 
diner, History  of  the  Commonwealth  and  Protectorate , 1649-1656,  New  Edition, 
4 vols.  (London,  1903),  II.  124. 

5  His  Common  Good,  or,  the  Improvement  of  Commons,  Forrests,  and  Chases  by 
Inclosure , etc.,  was  published  at  London  in  1652. 

6  Mentioned  in  Child’s  letter  of  23  November  16525  see  above. 

‘ My  colleague,  Dr.  T.  S.  Stevens,  thinks  that  ferrous  sulphate  is  meant. 

8 For  Michael  Sendivogius  see  Ferguson,  of.  cit.,  11.  364—370. 

9 I do  not  find  this  in  Child’s  “large  letter.” 


40  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

mold  or  turf  on  the  chalky  banks.  As  for  the  experiment  from  Paris  about 
steeping  corn,1  he  had  declared  in  his  former  discourse2  that  barley  is 
steeped  in  Kent  to  take  away  all  soil  (except  drake3)  and  also  all  light 
corn,  further  to  accelerate  growth,  if  it  be  sown  late;  pigeon  dung,  if 
added,  may  be  as  good  as  half  a dunging;  but  what  little  strength  the 
corn  draws  by  this  steeping  cannot  do  wonders  and,  since,  if  all  the  salt, 
nitre,  cow,  sheep,  and  pigeon  dung  in  this  brine  were  put  on  the  earth,  it 
would  not  dung  a quarter,  “how  can  the  extract  do  so  much?”  Child 
cannot  see  any  great  reason  for  it,  unless  “perchance  there  be  some  oc- 
cult vivifaction  of  the  spirits  of  the  seed,  which  as  yet  I am  ignorant  of.” 
To  get  1 14  ears  of  corn  from  one4  was  to  him  nothing,  for  he  had  had 
140  of  oats  “without  any  steeping  or  such  doings,”  but  by  a trifling  art, 
which  he  would  all  the  world  did  know,  viz.,  by  putting  some  broad 
thing  like  clods  or  tileshards  on  the  corn  when  it  begins  to  spread,  to 
make  it  spread,  and  by  not  letting  any  corn  grow  within  a foot  or  a foot 
and  a half  of  it;  he  had  had  more  than  2,000  grains5  for  one  or  of  one 
“cut  in  the  midst,”  and  more  than  100  in  one  case6  “without  the  steep- 
ing.” His  opinion  of  the  second  experiment  with  brine7  is  the  same  as 
that  of  the  first,  but  he  adds  four  considerations:  first,  that  “they  are  to 
blame  who  think  to  medicine  the  earth,  as  physitians  doe  the  body,  and 

1 This  experiment  is  described  in  the  third  edition  of  the  Legacy , 12—13,  at  the  end, 
after  303. 

2 His  “large  letter”}  Legacie , first  edition,  48—49 : “In  Kent  it  is  usual  to  steep  Bar- 
ly  when  they  sow  late,  that  it  may  grow  the  faster}  and  also  to  take  away  the  soile; 
for  wild  Oates,  Cockle  and  all  save  Drake  will  swimme;  as  also  much  of  the  light 
corne,  which  to  take  away  is  very  good.  If  you  put  Pigeons-dung  into  the  water, 
and  let  it  steep  all  night,  it  may  be  as  it  were  half  a dunging.” 

3 Drawk. 

4 An  extract  of  a letter  from  Amsterdam,  28  November  1650,  in  the  Legacie , first 
edition,  120— 1 21,  says:  “From  Paris  I am  advertised  (for  certain)  of  one,  who  did 
last  year  (1649)  ferment  one  grain  of  wheat  which  this  year  hath  produced  him 
1 14  Eares  and  within  them  6000  graines,  which  is  more  than  80  Eares,  and  6oo[!] 
graines  of  your  English  Friend’s  [i.e.,  Cressy  Dymock,  see  n.  94].”  The  “secret” 
of  this  experiment  is  given,  ibid.,  124. 

5 In  the  Legacie , first  edition,  120,  Cressy  Dymock,  in  a letter  of  26  September 
1650  describing  one  of  his  experiments,  says:  “Out  of  one  single  Barly-Corne  is 
sprung  about  80  Ears,  of  which  neare  60  had,  some  38,  some  36,  34,  32,  30,  and 
hardly  any  less  than  38  [?  = 28],  which  in  all  is  above  2000  for  one.” 

6 Cf.  Legacie , first  edition,  8,  wrhere  Child  had  already  claimed  these  results.  Sir 
Thomas  Browne  considered  the  question  of  the  hundredfold  increase  of  grain  in  his 
Miscellany  Tracts,  1,  section  31,  Works,  ill.  174—178. 

7 Described  in  the  Legacy,  third  edition,  12—13,  at  the  end,  after  303.  Experiments 
somewhat  similar  to  this  and  to  the  one  referred  to  in  n.  90,  including  the  sugges- 
tion of  Gabriel  Plattes  for  steeping  grain  in  rain  water  and  cow  dung  or  saltpetre, 
had  been  described  in  the  first  edition,  124— 125  and  128. 


i947l  Robert  Child  41 

therefore  add  such  varietys  of  dungs,  as  cowes,  pidgeons,  horse,  sheep,  as 
so  many  radices,  folio,  fructus,  semina,  and  then  add  salt  and  nitre,  as 
physitians  doe  ginger  and  mace,  then  a little  lute8  and  oxegall,  as  they 
do  muske  and  ambergrease,  then  boyle  and  strayne,  then  Cape  Colaturam, 
and  dissolve  ut  prius.  I for  my  part  thinke  that  our  ould  grandame  the 
Earth,  ought  not  thus  to  be  noursed,  and  suppose  that  there  is  more  vani- 
ty in  these  than  in  the  apothecaryes  bills”;  secondly,  nitre  being  dear,  the 
crop  will  not  pay  charges,  and  that  the  countryman  will  consider,  though 
the  “projecting  husbandman”  do  not;  thirdly,  an  overcharged  solution 
means  that  the  undissolved  material  is  wasted;  and  fourthly,  the  cause 
of  fruitfulness  is  not  only  the  vita  media  in  dung.  On  the  question  of 
fruitfulness  he  has  sent  Hartlib  a short  discourse,9  “which  is  only  to  show 
you  the  difficulty  of  the  question  and  to  stir  up  some  other  to  attempt  it”; 
he  has  a larger  discourse  on  the  subject,  not  yet  “thoroughly  digested”; 
if  he  sends  it  with  his  next  letter  Hartlib  is  to  add  it  where  the  three  as- 
terisks are  in  the  margin,1  or  at  the  end.  As  for  the  result  claimed  for  the 
experiment  with  brine,  that  one  will  reap  an  hundredfold,  Child  wagers 
that  he  could  dig  land,  provided  it  were  not  extremely  barren,  and  get 
the  same  increase  “without  all  these  slibber  slops.”  The  last  experiment2 
he  likes  best,  since  it  is  the  most  probable,  but  he  does  not  know  how  to 
get  so  much  sal  terrae  as  to  supply  everyone,  nor  how  it  could  be  extracted, 
nor  how  it  differs  from  nitre;3  the  grain,  he  supposes,  will  be  excellent 


8 This  is  what  the  word  appears  to  be  in  the  manuscript.  It  is  printed  as  “salt”  in 
the  third  edition  of  the  Legacy  (see  n.  ioo)  ; but  this  is  probably  a mistake,  be- 
cause the  addition  of  salt  had  already  been  mentioned. 

9 The  discourse  survives  among-  Hartlib’s  papers  as  a sheet  headed  “Quaestio  de  fer- 
tilitate  omnibus  Naturae  scrutatoribus  indefessis  proposita.”  An  English  translation, 
under  the  heading  “A  great  Question  concerning  Fruitfulnesse.  Offered  to  all  in- 
genious Searchers  of  Nature,”  was  published  in  the  Legacy , third  edition,  1 6,  at 
the  end,  after  303.  It  is  not  the  same  as  “A  Philosophical  Letter  concerning  Vege- 
tation or  the  causes  of  Fruitfulnesse,”  printed  in  the  Legacy , third  edition,  2x7—219. 

1 Not  found. 

2 Described  in  the  Legacy , third  edition,  13,  at  the  end,  after  303.  The  description 
is  an  English  version  of  an  account  in  Latin  sent  by  Dr.  George  Horne  of  Leyden  to 
Hartlib  on  12  September  1652  and  preserved  among  Hartlib’s  papers.  Hartlib  cop- 
ied out  the  Latin  version,  and  a further  account  of  the  experiment  (drawn  from 
Horne’s  letter  to  him  of  1 5 September  1653,  also  preserved  among  Hartlib’s  papers) 
in  his  letter  to  Boyle  of  28  February  1653/54  (Birch,  of.  cit .,  vi.  82—83).  Child’s 
observations  on  this  experiment  and  the  other  two  referred  to  in  notes  90  and  96  are 
printed  in  the  Legacy , third  edition,  13—15 ; they  are  taken,  almost  word  for  word, 
from  Child’s  letter  of  2 February  1652/53  to  Hartlib. 

3 To  satisfy  this  desire  of  Child’s  to  know  how  to  extract  sal  terrae  and  how  it  dif- 
fers from  nitre,  Hartlib  obtained  (cf.  Legacy , third  edition,  page  wrongly  marked 


42  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

and  long  lasting.  He  commends  Blith  “and  the  rest”  very  much,  and 
will  say  more  about  them  in  his  next  letter.  He  has  received  Hartlib’s  last 
letter  of  4 January.  He  has  found  more  errors  in  his  “large  letter”  on 
rereading  it,  and  has  added  two  or  three  more  “deficiencies”;  and  “so 
have  set  my  last  hand  to  it,  resolving  never  more  to  looke  it  over,  better 
or  worse,  so  let  the  world  have  it.”  He  has  sent  another  sheet  in  answer 
to  Dr.  Boate,  and  will  send  the  rest  (“two  sheets  more”)  the  following 
week  through  Worsley.  If  Henshaw  ever  visits  Hartlib,  Child  would 
like  to  know  if  his  “college”  still  goes  on.  In  a postscript  he  adds  that  “Sir 
Philom  O’Neale  the  grand  Rebell  is  taken,  also  the  lies  of  Arran,  therfor 
the  war  ended.” 

The  next  letter,  dated  Lisneygarvey,  8 April  1653,  t>egins  by  thanking 
Hartlib  for  the  books  sent  on  1 March.  He  sends  the  conclusion  of  his 
answer  to  Dr.  Boate,  saying  he  “had  much  adoe  to  finish”  it,  partly 
through  his  own  negligence.  He  has  received  Hartlib’s  letter  of  2 1 March, 
but  neither  that  sent  in  April  nor  Morgan’s  that  was  with  it.  He  cannot 
as  yet  finish  his  discourse,  De  Fertilitatef  partly  through  idleness,  partly 
for  want  of  books,  and  the  subject  is  very  difficult;  perhaps  he  will  go  on 
leisurely  with  it,  but  he  can  promise  no  more  than  stubble  for  such  a work. 
Boate  is  most  able  to  go  on  with  his  brother’s  discourse  about  Ireland, 
“and  I hope  will  hearken  to  reason”;  if  he  wants  it,  Child  will  contrib- 
ute what  is  as  yet  in  his  scattered  papers,  for  he  wishes  to  have  it  perfected. 
Stirk  is  not  discontented  with  Hartlib  or  Dury,  but  only  laments  his  mis- 
fortune in  removing  to  St.  James’s  to  distil  oils,  which  seemingly  did  not 
succeed  as  expected;5  Child  begs  Hartlib  to  continue  his  goodness  to 
Stirk  and  to  advise  him  for  the  best.  Child  will  not  be  in  London  in  the 
summer,  as  he  had  expected,  but  hopes  to  be  there  in  the  next  spring  and 
to  stay  there,  “for  my  thoughts  do  not  fix  here,  so  remote  from  ingenuous 
men.”  He  has  had  a long  letter  from  Worsley. 

On  7 July  1653,  wrote  again  to  Hartlib,  the  only  one  in  England 

12,  at  the  end,  after  303)  from  three  friends  explanations  which  are  printed  as 
“expositions”  in  the  Legacy , third  edition,  17—23,  at  the  end,  after  303. 

4 Apparently  it  was  never  finished. 

5 In  1 649  Dury  and  his  wife  were  at  any  rate  contemplating  the  making  and  selling 
of  perfumes  as  a means  of  earning  a living  at  St.  James’s  Palace  5 Turnbull,  of.  cit., 
260— 261,  267.  Dury  was  appointed  keeper  of  the  books  and  medals  at  St.  James’s  on 
28  October  1650  (ibid.,  2 66),  and  Stirk  may  have  begun  to  distil  oils  there  soon 
after  his  arrival  in  England  towards  the  end  of  1650.  He  was  certainly  doing  so  in 
March,  1652,  as  Dury’s  letters  to  Hartlib  showr;  but  illness,  apparently  in  April  of 
that  year,  stopped  the  work,  and  it  wras  perhaps  when  Dury  returned  from  a mission 
to  Sweden  in  July,  1652  (ibid.,  271),  that  Stirk  had  to  leave  St.  James’s,  the  news 
being  conveyed  to  Child  in  Hartlib’s  letter  of  6 August. 


1947]  Robert  Child  43 

from  whom  he  can  receive  a word  or  two,  for  “I  have  wrote  to  my  other 
friends  till  I am  weary,  and  therefore  at  present  give  over  writing  to 
them.”  If  Mr.  Royden  fails  as  the  bearer  of  the  letters  between  them, 
they  can  scarcely  correspond  any  more,  which  consideration  causes  him 
to  throw  the  few  observations  which  he  has  collected,  “into  some  blind 
hole  or  other,  from  whence  (perhaps)  when  an  opportunity  presents,  I 
may  take  them  forth.”  His  poor  gleanings  would  be  better  preserved  for 
a second  edition  of  Boate’s  work,  “by  which  time  I shall  collect  more  ex- 
perience whither  I can  adde  any  thing  or  nothing.”  He  can  add  scarcely 
anything  to  what  he  has  said  in  his  “large  letter”  about  bees;()  he  sup- 
poses that  “Butler'  and  Leveret*  have  done  so  much  that  little  can  be 
picked  out  of  ould  authors,  and  little  added  by  new.”  Yet  Hartlib  does 
well  to  go  forward,  “for  dayly  new  things  are  found  out  not  known  to 
the  ancients,  and  indeed  this  kind  of  creatures  may  be  very  beneficiall 
and  pleasant  to  the  true  managers  of  them.”  His  treatise,  De  Fertilitate } 
lies,  as  at  first,  “rude  and  undigested”;  he  cannot  readily  find  and  digest 
it,  for  they  are  moving  to  a new  house ; but  it  will  serve  for  the  next  edi- 
tion, “though  indeed  I cannot  heartily  goe  about  it,  because  I shall  be 
so  paradoxicall,  and  further,  I want  bookes  and  other  necessarys  to  polish 
any  treatise,  and  therefore  it  will  only  be  as  stubble.”  Sir  John  Clotwor- 
thy, to  whom  Child  is  beholden  for  his  love  through  Hartlib’s  commen- 
dations, is  returning:  to  London. 

The  last  letter  is  from  Dublin,  28  October  1653.  Mr.  Royden  not 
having  brought  an  answer  from  Hartlib,  Child  suspects  that  he  did  not 
visit  Hartlib;  “I  perceive  that  he  is  dayly  more  negligent  of  my  letters.” 
Worsley  has  promised  to  forward  Hartlib’s  letters  to  Child  if  they  are 
enclosed  in  those  to  him.  Child  thanks  Hartlib  for  “Mr.  Austine  booke,”6 7 8 9 
sent  through  Mr.  Moore.  There  is  nothing  to  communicate  to  Hartlib, 
“these  places  being  wholy  busied  in  stating  debentures,  displanting  the 
Irish  and  Scots,  and  settling  English  plantations.”  If  Leader  is  in  London, 
Hartlib  is  to  ask  him  to  write  to  Child  an  account  of  New  England,  “as 
concerning  the  Dutch,  and  how  far  the  iron  works  (of  which  I should 
be  a partner)  do  thrive.”  Worsley  and  Petty  “are  about  a physic  garden, 
and  I suppose,  will  desire  your  assistance  therein.”  He  encloses  a letter  to 
Morgan. 

6 Cf.  Legacie , first  edition,  63— 69. 

7 Charles  Butler  wrote  The  Feminine  Monarc  hie,  or  a Treatise  concerning  Bees 
and  the  due  ordering  of  Bees,  1609. 

8 Child  probably  means  John  Levett,  who  wrote  The  ordering  of  Bees,  1634. 

9 A Treatise  of  Fruit-Trees , by  Ralph  Austen,  published  in  1653. 


44  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

In  the  Efhemerides  for  1652  there  are  five  entries  concerning  Child 
which  do  not  seem  to  be  touched  upon  in  his  letters.  First,  Pell  tells  Hart- 
lib  that  great  quantities  of  damsons  were  wont  to  be  produced  in  Ireland, 
and  doubtless  will  be  again,  and  that  therefore  Child,  who  “affirms  the 
making  of  Damsin  wine,”  should  be  reminded  of  this.  Secondly,  Dr.  Fit- 
tens,  of  Essex,  a friend  of  Child,  and  now  dead,  made  an  index  of  Hel- 
mont.  Thirdly,  Johannes  Norwegus,  according  to  Child,  had  become 
chaplain  to  the  King  of  Denmark,  and  is  “a  fit  correspondent.”  Fourthly, 
Child  told  Hartlib  that  Appelius  had  a way  of  making  beer  without  malt 
or  hops,1  some  of  the  ingredients  being  “Ella  Campana2  and  the  refuse 
or  that  which  is  left3  after  the  sugar  is  refined.”  Fifthly,  Child  claimed 
to  have  several  recipes  for  making  marbled  paper. 

Kittredge  suggests4  that  Child  died  between  February  and  May,  1654, 
because  Child  is  mentioned,  obviously  as  alive,  in  Hartlib’s  letter  to  Boyle 
of  28  February  1653/54,  but  referred  to  as  “the  late  Dr.  Child”  in  Hart- 
lib’s  letter  to  Boyle  of  8 May  165 4. 5 We  may  assume  that  Boyle  would 
have  known  if  Child  were  already  dead  when  he  wrote  on  10  January 
1 65 3/54  from  Youghall  to  Hartlib  the  letter6  which  Hartlib  answered 
on  28  February  1653/54,  and  that  similarly  Hartlib  would  have  known 
when  he  wrote  to  Boyle  on  28  February.  Though  Boyle  and  Child  were 
not  in  direct  communication  with  each  other,  as  appears  from  Child’s 
letters  to  Hartlib  already  quoted,  Boyle  was  at  the  time  in  such  close  touch 
with  people  like  Worsley  and  Petty,  who  knew  Child  and  were  in  Dub- 
lin near  Child  at  the  time,  as  to  be  informed  by  them  immediately  of 
Child’s  death.  As  for  Hartlib,  we  do  not  know  when  he  received  Child’s 
letter  of  28  October  1653,  the  ^ast  written  by  Child  to  be  found  among 
Hartlib’s  papers,  nor  when  he  replied,  if  he  did,  nor  whether  Child  ever 
wrote  him  again;  but  Child’s  last  letter,  of  28  October  1653,  from  Dub- 
lin, speaks  of  “our  loving  freinds  Mr.  Worsley  and  Dr.  Petty”  being 
there,  and  they  would  no  doubt  tell  Hartlib  of  Child’s  death.  Moreover, 
Sir  Cheney  Culpeper,  writing  to  Hartlib  on  25  February  1653/54,  men- 
tions Child’s  letter  of  husbandry,  but  does  not  say  “the  late”  nor  that 
Child  is  dead.  Kittredge,  therefore,  is  probably  right  in  his  suggestion 
about  the  time  of  Child’s  death. 

Kittredge  points  out7  that  John  Winthrop  the  younger  did  not  hear 

1 In  his  “Answer”  to  Dr.  Boate  in  the  third  edition  of  the  Legacy  (1655),  142, 
Child  wrote  of  making  beer  without  malt 5 cf.  Kittredge,  of.  cit .,  no. 

2 My  colleague,  Dr.  T.  S.  Stevens,  suggests  that  Enula  camfana , i.e.,  elecamfane , is 

meant.  3 Molasses,  presumably.  4 Of.  cit.,  122. 

5 Birch,  of.  cit.,  vi.  80,  81,  82  and  85.  6 Ibid.,  78. 

7 Of.  cit.,  123  ; the  letter  is  printed  in  1 Proc.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc .,  xvi.  212— 214. 


Robert  Child 


■ 


1947] 


45 


of  his  friend  Child’s  death  until  Hartlib  told  him  of  it,  in  a letter  of  3 
September  1661,  as  having  occurred  “about  3. 8 yeares  agoe.”  Among 
Hartlib’s  papers  there  is  a letter  from  Winthrop  to  Hartlib,  dated  25 
October  1660,  which  says:  “I  find  in  your  book  the  legacy  of  Husbandry 
mention  of  my  name  in  a letter,9  which  hath  no  name  to  it  but  I guesse 
it  to  be  Dr.  Rob.  Child,  of  whom  I should  willingly  understand  whether 
yet  inter  vivos  for  I feare  he  is  dead  because  I have  not  heard  from  him 
these  many  years.”  Hartlib  had  sent  him,  on  16  March  1660,  a copy  of 
the  Legacy  in  quarto,  probably  of  the  third  edition  of  1655,  along  with 
other  books  and  manuscripts,  which  Winthrop  listed  and  acknowledged 
in  a letter  of  25  August  1660. 

Child’s  “large  letter”  to  Hartlib  forms  the  bulk  (pages  1— 108)  of  the 
first  edition,  1651,  of  “Samuel  Hartlib  his  Legacie”  on  husbandry.  None 
of  the  rest  of  this  book,  which  runs  to  13 1 pages,  excluding  three  pages 
at  the  beginning  containing  Hartlib’s  address  “To  the  Reader”  and  Sir 
Richard  Weston’s  “Legacy  to  his  sons,”  seems  to  have  been  contributed 
by  Child.  Child  wrote  the  “large  letter”  in  haste,  as  he  says  in  his  letter  to 
Hartlib  of  13  November  1651,  when  he  wanted  to  review  it,  “that  I may 
partly  adde  and  mend  what  is  amisse” ; in  his  next  letter  of  26  (probably) 
February  1651/52,  he  repeated  his  wish  to  amend  the  errors  in  the  “im- 
perfect” “large  letter”  and  to  add  some  things  to  it,  “if  it  be  worth  the 
reprinting.”  But  it  must  have  been  reprinting  even  before  Hartlib  re- 
ceived, on  3 February  1652,  the  first  of  these  two  letters  from  Child,  be- 
cause Hartlib’s  letter  of  15  December  1651  must  have  conveyed  that 
news  to  Child.  Yet  the  printing  cannot  have  been  completed  before  3/13 
January  1652,  the  date  of  the  last  letter  from  Arnold  Boate  contained 
in  the  Annotations  which  follow  the  “large  letter”  in  the  second  edition. 
It  must  have  been  completed  very  soon  after  that,  however,  for  by  8 April 
1652  Child  had  received  from  Hartlib  “the  packet,”  presumably  of  cop- 
ies of  the  second  edition,  and  was  commenting  on  it. 

This  second  edition  has  in  “An  Appendix”  two  main  additions  to  what 
is  contained  in  the  first  edition.  The  first  addition  is  entitled  “Annotations 
upon  the  Legacie  of  Husbandry”  and  consists  of  extracts  from  ten  letters 
written  by  Arnold  Boate  to  Hartlib  from  Paris  between  I July  1651  and 
3/13  January  1651/52.  The  second  has  as  title-page  “An  Interrogatory 
relating  more  particularly  to  the  Husbandry  and  Natural  History  of  Ire- 

8 I wonder  if  the  3 is  not  a misreading  of  an  8 written  by  Hartlib;  it  would  be 
worth  while  comparing  this  figure  with  the  other  two  threes  in  the  letter,  which  is 
presumably  in  the  possession  of  the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society. 

9 Cf.  Kittredge,  of.  cit .,  112,  where  the  “mention”  is  quoted  from  the  third  edition 
of  the  Legacy , 133— 134. 


4 6 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

land,”  and  consists  of  “The  Alphabet  of  Interrogatories,”  of  twenty-five 
pages,  the  subjects  of  the  questions,  drawn  up  apparently  by  Arnold  Boate, 
being  arranged  in  alphabetical  order.  Hartlib  obviously  intended  the  an- 
swers to  serve  as  material  for  the  completion  of  Gerard  Boate’s  Ireland's 
Natural  History , first  published  in  1652.  A letter1  from  Hartlib  to  Child, 
placed  at  the  beginning  of  “An  Appendix,”  asks  him  to  “look  upon  this 
Alphabet  of  Interrogatories,  and  consider  what  Answers  your  observa- 
tions will  afford  unto  them;  or  what  you  can  learne  from  the  observa- 
tions of  others  to  clear  them.”  Child’s  letters  show  that  Arnold  Boate  was 
being  urged  by  Hartlib  to  undertake  the  completion  of  his  brother  Ger- 
ard’s work  on  Ireland's  Natural  History.  Child  himself  acknowledged  the 
receipt  of  the  Interrogatory  on  23  June  1652,  and  his  letters  of  that  date, 
and  of  29  August  1652,  2 February  1652/53,  8 April  and  7 July  1653, 
show  that  he  was  gathering  “stubble”  of  certain  kinds  for  it.  Among 
Hartlib’s  papers  there  are  sheets  dealing  in  alphabetical  order  with  various 
topics  ranging  from  “Galls”  to  “Wood,”  the  same  topics  as  are  contained 
in  the  Interrogatory,  and  in  the  same  order,  though  some  in  the  Inter- 
rogatory are  not  dealt  with.  I think  it  very  likely  that  these  sheets  are 
some  of  the  “stubble”  contributed  by  Child  to  Hartlib. 

On  23  June  1652  Child  wrote  to  Hartlib  that  he  could  easily  answer 
the  contents  of  Boate’s  “Annotations”  and  amend  errata,  and  would  do 
so,  and  also  make  additions,  if  a third  edition  were  to  be  made.  On  23 
November  he  sent  amendments2  for  his  “large  letter”  and  a sheet  in  an- 
swer to  Boate.  On  2 February  1652/53  he  sent  a short  discourse  about 
fruitfulness,3  more  corrections  for  his  “large  letter,”  two  or  three  more 
deficiencies  to  be  added,4  and  another  sheet  in  answer  to  Boate;  and  on  8 
April  1653  sent  conclusion  (two  more  sheets  according  to  his  let- 
ter of  2 February)  of  his  answer  to  Boate.  This  answer,  though  only  of 
four  sheets  apparently,  must  be  “An  Answer  to  the  Animadversor  on  the 
Letter  to  Mr.  Samuel  Hartlib  of  Husbandry,”  which  occupies  pages  132— 
1 72  of  the  third  edition  of  the  Legacy , published  in  1655,  and  is  placed  im- 
mediately after  Boate’s  “Annotations”  (pages  118—132).  Apart  from 
the  “large  letter”  and  this  answer,  Child  made  one  other  contribution 

1 Quoted  in  part  by  Kittredge,  of.  cit .,  108-109. 

2 Kittredge,  of.  cit.y  103,  n.  1,  and  no,  n.  1,  indicates  changes  made  in  the  “large 
letter”  for  the  third  edition. 

3 See  n.  98  above. 

4 Probably  included  in  the  third  edition,  91—92  (where  he  writes  of  the  destruction 
caused  to  crops  by  crows,  rooks,  rats  and  mice,  and  of  the  failure  to  plant  saffron, 
hops,  etc.)  and  on  93—95  (where  he  mentions  a great  deficiency  in  the  storing  of  corn 
and  indicates  remedies). 


1947]  Robert  Child  47 

to  the  third  edition,  viz.,  “Observations  and  Animadversions  upon  the 
foregoing  secrets  or  experiments.”5 6 

Hartlib,  as  was  his  wont,  passed  the  annotations  on  the  “large  letter” 
written  by  Boate  in  his  first  two  letters  from  Paris,  of  i July  and  12  July, 
respectively,'5  on  to  Dr.  William  Rand  for  his  comments,  which  are  duly 
recorded  in  a letter  of  1 September  1651  from  Rand  at  Amsterdam  to 
Hartlib,  found  among  Hartlib’s  papers.  Child  does  not  mention  Rand’s 
comments  in  his  letters,  so  perhaps  Hartlib  never  passed  them  on  to  him ; 
and  they  do  not  seem  to  have  been  incorporated  at  all  in  the  second  or 
third  editions  of  the  Legacy. 

Hartlib’s  papers,  besides  throwing  much  light  on  the  topics  which  have 
just  been  considered,  give  us  some  information  on  three  other  matters 
mentioned  by  Professor  Kittredge,  viz.,  Child’s  possession  of  a book  by 
William  Petty,  the  identification  of  Eirenaeus  Philalethes  with  Stirk,  not 
with  Child,  and  the  Child  family. 

According  to  Kittredge7  there  is  a copy  of  William  Petty’s  The  Advice 
oj  IV.  P.  to  Mr.  Samuel  Hartlib  for  the  Advancement  oj  some  f articular  Parts 
oj  Learning  in  the  library  of  the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  which 
may  have  been  a present  from  Hartlib  to  the  younger  Winthrop.  Hart- 
lib certainly  sent  Winthrop  a copy  on  16  March  1660, 8 and  the  latter 
acknowledged  its  receipt  in  his  reply  of  25  August  1660,  calling  it  “Ad- 
vice for  advancement  of  some  parts  of  learning,  in  4t0” ; and  this  may  be 
the  copy  to  which  Kittredge  refers. 

Kittredge  discusses9  the  identity  of  the  mysterious  chemical  adept  called 
Eirenaeus  Philalethes  and  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  he  was  not  Robert 
Child,  as  has  been  sometimes  supposed,  but  George  Stirk.  A few  points  in 
that  discussion  can  be  illuminated  from  the  information  concerning  Child 
and  Stirk  contained  in  Hartlib’s  papers.  First  of  all,  the  “freind  in  Scot- 
land who  hath  perfected  Helmont’s  menstruum,”  mentioned  in  Child’s 
letter  to  John  Winthrop  the  younger  of  13  May  1648,  appears  to  have 
been  one  “Carmihill”  or  “Carmehel,”  perhaps  Carmichael,  v/hom  Child 
mentioned  to  Hartlib  in  1649  and  whose  name  occurs  in  a letter  from 
Cheney  Culpeper  to  Hartlib.1  Secondly,  the  conjecture  of  Kittredge2  that 
nothing  is  more  probable  than  that  Child  knew  Robert  Fludd  seems  to 

5 Printed  on  13—15,  at  the  end,  after  303  5 see  n.  100  above.  The  “experiments,”  for 
steeping-  corn,  are  also  printed  there,  12-13. 

6 Printed  in  the  Legacy , third  edition,  1 18-120.  7 Of.  cit .,  98,  n.  4. 

8 Hartlib’s  letter  of  this  date,  and  Winthrop’s  reply,  are  among-  Hartlib’s  papers. 

9 Of.  cit.y  129—146. 

1 See  above,  under  1649,  and  n.  15. 


2 Of.  cit.y  129. 


48  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

be  wrong.3  Thirdly,  the  statement  that  Eirenaeus  Philalethes,  or  Stirk 
was  twenty-three  years  of  age  in  16454  does  not  taHy  with  Stirk’s  age  as 
given  in  Hartlib’s  Efhemerides  for  1650,  when  Stirk  was  twenty-two  years 
of  age.  Fourthly,  Kittredge  gives5  Stirk’s  pseudonym  as  Eirenaeus  Phi- 
loponus  Philalethes.  A copy  of  a letter6  from  Stirk  to  Johannes  Morian, 
of  30  May  1651,  ends  thus:  “A  Philaletha  Philopono  Hermeticae  Scholae 
Chemiatra  indignissimo  tibi  devotissimo  Ad  obsequium,  Honoremque 
syncerum  exhibendum,  Georgio  Stirkio.”  About  Stirk,  Hartlib’s  Efhem - 
erides  record,  from  Child,  that  “he  can  fix  Mercury  (1650),”  that  he 
“hath  the  Helmontian  Alkahest  or  a Liquor  (1650),”  and  that  “his  is 
not  yet  that  Universal  Alkahest  but  it  is  an  approximation  (1651).” 
Child’s  letters  say  about  Stirk:  “I  believe  he  hath  already  tould  me  his 
Alkehest,  I am  glad  if  it  prove  soe”;7  “if  he  have  the  Alkahest  as  I hope 
he  hath,  he  hath  enough  whithersoever  he  goes.”8  There  is  nothing  here 
to  suggest  that  Stirk  got  the  elixir  and  the  manuscripts  on  chemistry  from 
Child,  and  that  therefore  Child  was  Eirenaeus  Philalethes.  So  far  as  Hart- 
lib’s papers  go,  therefore,  Kittredge’s  argument  against  this  identification 
is  borne  out. 

Kittredge  says9  that  Child’s  father,  John  Child,  appears  to  have  had  a 
comfortable  estate,  probably  at  Northfleet  in  Kent.  Hartlib’s  Efhemerides 
for  1653,  however,  contain  the  following  entry,  made  in  June,  between 
the  7th  and  22nd:  “Mr.  John  Child,  Mr.  Child’s  father  living  in  the  Isle 
of  Ely  a Councillour  of  the  Inner  Temple  but  a great  Husbandman  for 
Cattel  his  wife  makes  a most  admirable  kind  of  butter  far  exceeding  the 
ordinarie  way.  For  she  makes  it  without  setting  the  milke  for  creame  thus. 
The  milke  so  soon  as  it  is  come  from  the  cowe  must  bee  strained  then 
churned,  as  usually  creame  is  done.  Also  the  cheese  made  of  the  Butter- 
milke  will  bee  better  than  the  best  two-meale  cheeses  that  you  ever  did 
eate.  And  one  pound  of  this  Butter  shal  be  worth  a pound  and  a halfe  of 
your  best  Butter  which  is  made  of  creame.1  Probatum.  This  I had  from 
Mr.  Childs  hand,  whose  father  keepes  30  or  40  servants  by  reason  of  the 
great  number  of  Cattel  in  which  hee  deales.  Dr.  Francius2  fellow  of 

3 See  above,  under  1650,  and  n.  24.  4 Kittredge,  of.  cit.y  135. 

5 Of.  cit.y  134,  n.  4.  6 Found  among  Hartlib’s  papers. 

7 Letter  of  23  November  1652.  8 Letter  of  2 February  1652/53. 

9 Of.  cit.y  4 and  n.  4 there,  and  5,  n.  4. 

1 A sheet  containing  this  recipe  in  Hartlib’s  hand  lies  among  his  papers.  Hartlib 
sent  the  information  to  Boyle  on  28  February  1653/54  (Birch,  of.  cit.y  VI.  83), 
and  printed  it  in  the  third  edition  of  his  Legacy , 263. 

2 John  Francius,  a refugee  from  Silesia;  cf.  J.  and  J.  A.  Venn,  Alumni  Cantabrigi- 

ensesy  Pt.  I (Cambridge,  1922),  11.  172. 


Robert  Child 


1947] 


49 


Peter-house  is  very  well  acquainted  with  him  and  continually  resorts  to 
their  house.  For  hee  base  most  excellent  Bier  of  3 or  4 y[ears]  old  which 
the  Dr.  loves.  Also  their  cheeses  some  of  them  of  2 yfears]  old  are  very 
renowned  which  they  give  away  as  a rarity.  For  they  are  very  singular 
and  delicate.  The  Countesse  of  Arundel  was  a mighty  suiter  and  lover  of 
them.” 

The  Mr.  Child  just  mentioned  and  described  by  Hartlib  as  John  Child’s 
son  may  have  been  the  Major  John  Child  about  whom  Kittredge  gives 
a good  deal  of  information,3  though  Hartlib  never  gives  him  that  title, 
nor  indeed  refers  to  him  as  other  than  Mr.  Child.4  The  reference  in  1650 
to  Dr.  Child’s  “brother  and  cozen”  planting  nurseries  of  fruit  trees  near 
Greenwich  has  already  been  mentioned  above;  likewise  the  reference  in 
the  same  year  to  Dr.  Child’s  opinion  that  his  brother  had  become  one  of 
the  best  husbandmen  in  England.  The  Efhemerides  for  1653  record  that 
Mr.  Child  told  Hartlib  of  a method  used  in  Norway  for  pickling  mack- 
erel;5 of  an  Englishman,  Gore  of  Amersford,6  “an  arch-Cavallier,  but 
so  drunken  a sott  that  he  is  no  ways  dangerous,”  who  used  logwood  as  an 
indelible  dye,  and  whom  Mr.  Child  was  trying  to  get  over  into  England; 
of  one  Banks,  a clerk  in  the  Excise  Office,  who  could  write  backwards 
“with  great  expedition”;  of  his  and  Hartlib’s  joint  opinion  that  if  Otto 
Faber,7  who  says  that  “the  English  are  to  conquer  all  other  nations,”  be 
a true  Adeptus,  he  should  come  to  England  and  reveal  it;  of  his  telling 
Culpeper  that  the  abele  tree  is  really  the  white  poplar,8  which  is  plentiful 
in  England,  and  that  the  lime  tree  is  a fast  grower  and  provides  useful 
timber.  The  Efhemerides  for  1655  record  from  Mr.  Child  that  Gore  had 
come  to  England  and  that  Mr.  Child  was  to  give  Hartlib  a further  ac- 
count of  Gore’s  art  of  dyeing  with  logwood ; later,  that  Gore  had  gone 


3 Op.  cit.y  4,  45—47,  84,  93-98. 

4 I have  assumed,  on  what  seems  to  be  sufficient  evidence,  that  when  Hartlib  quotes 
Mr.  Child  in  his  Ephemeridesy  he  does  not  mean  Robert  Child,  whom  he  usually  re- 
fers to  as  Dr.  Child  or  occasionally  as  simply  Child ; and  I have  assumed  that  for 
Hartlib  there  is  only  one  Mr.  Child. 

5 Cf.  above,  under  1650,  for  Dr.  Child’s  promise  to  get  Hartlib  an  Italian  recipe  for 
preserving  mackerel  in  oil  and  spices. 

6 Amersfoort,  in  the  Netherlands. 

7 He  seems  to  be  “that  famed  pretender  in  France”  mentioned  by  Hartlib  in  his  let- 
ter to  Boyle  of  28  February  1653/54  (Birch,  of.  cit.y  vi.  79).  He  is  mentioned 
in  1661  in  the  correspondence  between  Hartlib  and  John  Worthington  (J.  Crossley, 
The  Diary  and  Correspondence  of  Dr.  J.  Worthington , 3 vols.,  Chetham  Society 
Publications,  13,  36,  114  [Manchester,  1847-1886],  11.  6,  54),  and  a letter  from 
him  to  Hartlib  among  the  latter’s  papers  shows  that  he  was  in  London  in  that  year. 

8 See  above,  n.  46. 


50  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

to  Norwich,  but  that  one  Bigs  claimed  to  know  Gore’s  secret,  but  would 
only  reveal  it  if  paid  £20  in  advance  and  allowed  a half  share  in  the  profits. 

APPENDIX 

Boston  this  24th  Decemb.  1645. 

u1 

Though  the  times  be  so  exceeding  cold,  that  Inke  and  pen  freeze  extreame- 
ly,  and  colder  weather  scarce  knowne  in  this  country  yet  I wil  write  a word  or 
two  to  you  according  to  my  promise,  though  I cannot  inlarge  my  selfe  as  I 
would,  or  as  you  expect:  by  the  next  opportunity  I shall  be  more  large,  and  de- 
sire you  to  pardon  my  brevity.  This  country  of  New  England  from  Virginia 
southward  to  the  french  northward  at  Penobscott  is  about  6 or  700  miles  along 
the  sea  coast.  Towards  the  South  at  a place  called  Delaware  bay  live  some  Swedes 
about  an  hundred,  and  likewise  some  few  Hollanders,  which  hinder  the  Eng- 
lish from  planting  there,  though  some  20  familyes  from  Mr.  Davenports  planta- 
tions attempted  to  settle  there.  This  river  is  a very  great  river,  very  fruitfull, 
and  will  contayne  more  people  than  all  New  England  beside.  I suppose  this 
place  for  health  and  wealth  the  best  place  the  English  can  set  there  foot  in.  if 
any  leave  the  Kingdome  I pray  counsell  them  to  this  place,  and  many  here  will 
joyne  with  them  who  have  seen  the  place.  About  an  100  or  120  miles  from 
this  place  is  a river  called  Hudsons  river,  a very  great  river  navigable  about  200 
miles  up,  here  live  about  2 or  300  Hollanders  and  English  under  the  protection 
of  the  West  Indy  Company,  here  hath  bin  warres  betweene  the  Dutch  and  In- 
dians 3 or  4 years  which  hath  almost  ruined  the  plantations,  but  now  peace  is 
concluded:  this  place  is  poore,  subsists  especially  by  bever  trade  with  the  Indians. 
The  West  Indy  Company  thought  to  have  built  ships  here,  and  for  that  end 
erected  3 great  saw  mills,  and  also  to  have  made  it  a magazin  for  victualing  of 
their  ships,  but  missing  of  their  ends,  they  neglect  it  and  count  it  a burthen,  for 
its  chargable  unto  them,  and  therefore  have  not  sent  any  supplyes  hither  these 
2 yeares,  yet  the  States  will  not  permit  them  to  sell  it.  There  is  a rumor  of  a 
gold  mine  found  here,  some  say  its  naturall  cynabar  or  £ 9 with  a few  golden 
spangles.  I shall  (God  willing)  next  spring  see  it,  and  by  my  next  give  you  a 
further  and  certayner  relation.  About  20  miles  from  this  river  eastward  begin 
the  English  plantations,  and  continue  along  the  coast  about  400  miles  or  more: 
The  whole  number  of  the  English  is  about  40000  people,  divided  into  6 Juris- 
dictions and  into  80  plantations  or  there  about.  I could  tell  you  the  names  of  all 
of  them,  there  situations,  and  number  of  familyes,  but  it  would  be  too  tedious 
to  you  to  heare:  the  first  iurisdiction  southward  is  Mr.  Davenport  or  Mr.  Eatons, 
contayning  about  10  plantations.  I wonder  Mr.  Davenport  hath  not  written  to 
you,  when  I see  him  I shall  inquire  the  Reasons,  he  is  the  strictest  man  for  the 
church  covenant,  and  admitting  of  members  in  N.  England.  These  plantations 
flourish  indifferently  well  in  corne  and  cattle,  and  have  build  2 or  3 good  ves- 


9 Mercury. 


1947]  Robert  Child  51 

sels,  which  they  imploy,  and  intend,  as  I heare,  to  send  one  of  these  vessels  for 
London  this  year.  The  next  jurisdiction  is  Connecticut  river,  where  Mr.  Hook- 
er lives  contayning  5 or  6 good  plantations,  exceedingly  abounding  in  corne. 
the  last  yeare  they  spared  20000  bushell,  and  have  already  this  yeare  sent  to  the 
bay  4000  bushell  at  least  of  new  corne.  these  are  the  fruitfullest  places  in  all 
new  England:  3d  jurisdiction  [is]  Rhoade  lie  and  Narragenset  bay:  there  is 
some  controversy  about  it,  for  the  bay1  got  a patent  for  it  from  the  Parliament, 
and  the  inhabitants  likewise,  who  most  of  them  are  banished  men,  yet  rich  and 
the  place  fruitfull.  I am  sorry,  they  should  suffer  more,  having  suffred  twice  ban- 
ishment for  consciences  sake,  first  in  England,  secondly  in  the  bay  patent,  for 
mayntayning  liberty  of  conscience,  and  not  approving  there  Covenant,  which 
I confess  I stumble  at.  if  you  can  doe  them  any  good  by  your  freinds  in  Parlia- 
ment you  shall  doe  well,  this  place  abounds  with  corne  and  cattle,  esp.  sheep 
there  being  nigh  a IOOO  on  the  lie.  it  contaynes  4 plantations.  4th  jurisdiction 
is  Plymouth,  an  ould  Patent  contayning  10  or  12  plantations,  the  land  is  barren, 
the  people  very  poore,  but  moderate  men.  5 jurisdiction  is  the  Bay  patent,  a 
great  Patent  and  is  usually  called  New  England,  richer  and  greater  than  all  the 
rest,  contayning  about  30  or  40  plantations,  indifferently  fruitfull:  Here  they 
are  exceeding  bitter  against  Anabaptists,  and  other  that  differ  from  there  rules, 
enacting  lawes  banishing  and  punishing  all  schismaticks,  as  they  call  them,  yea 
counting  banishment  nothing.  I know  a captaine  that  came  over  in  the  last  ship, 
who  had  spent  his  bloud  and  estate  in  the  Parliaments  service  not  permitted  to 
live  above  3 weekes  with  them,  although  nothing  spoken  on  shoare,  only  in  the 
ship  he  endeavoured  to  defend  Dr.  Crispes  sermons,  who  is  counted  an  Anti- 
nomian.  I suppose  you  have  read  him,  but  if  not,  pray  doe  it,  and  let  me  know 
your  iudgment.  I suppose  truly  the  Dr.  writes  nothing  but  truth.  6th  and  north- 
most  jurisdiction  is  Sr  fferdinando  Gorges,  or  Mr.  Rigbys  a Parliament  mans, 
wherein  are  10  small  plantations,  where  I have  purchased  a small  plantation  at 
Sacho,  and  shall  settle  there,  if  I abide  in  these  parts,  for  I cannot  endure  the 
bitternes  of  the  other  plantations.  This  place  abounds  in  fish  and  timber. 

We  are  here  (God  be  thanked)  in  peace,  yet  in  August  the  whole  country 
was  in  armes  560  souldiers  pressed,  as  in  England,  to  goe  against  the  Indians 
Narragenset,  and  a declaration  printed,  which  if  I can  find,  you  shall  have  it,  but 
the  poore  Indians  submitted  to  the  English  demaund:  gave  500lb  in  there  mon- 
eys, and  4 of  their  chiefest  mens  children  for  hostages,  which  are  to  be  educated 
civilly:  the  ffrench  towards  the  north  threatened  those  plantations  because  the 
bay  relieved  one  Monsr  La  Torre  against  Monsr  La  Donne,2  who  having  4 men 
of  war  from  France  and  2 or  300  souldiers,  besiedged  La  Torres  fort,  and  tooke 
it,  where  he  did  put  about  50  English  and  French  to  the  sword,  the  bay  sent 
an  Embassador  to  Mr  Le  Donne,  for  to  be  at  peace,  but  he  returnes  answeare, 

1 Massachusetts. 

2 The  rivalry  between  Charles  de  Menou,  Sieur  d’Aulnay  (Dony)  de  Charnisay 
and  Charles  de  Saint-Ltienne  de  la  Tour  is  referred  to  in  Winthrof  Papers,  IV, 
1638— 1644  (Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  1944),  'passim. 


5 2 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

he  will  have  satisfaction  for  iniuryes,  and  is  not  content,  though  he  tooke  a 
barque  laden  with  provisions  worth  above  6ooIb-,  yet  he  promiseth  not  to  med- 
dle with  them,  till  he  heare  from  France.  We  have  victuals  here  reasonable 
cheape,  beefe  at  per  pound,  porke  at  3d,  wheat  at  3s  6d,  ry  at  3s,  Indian 
grayne  at  2s  6d,  pease  and  barley  at  4s,  and  we  hope  things  will  be  cheaper 
dayly.  Cloathing  is  scarce,  yet  flax  is  sowen  here  in  abundance,  and  hempe, 
likewise  leather  of  all  sorts  increaseth  dayly.  in  former  years  much  cotton  was 
spun  here,  but  this  last  yeare  none  came  from  the  West  Indyes,  so  that  if  cloath- 
ing had  not  come  from  England,  they  had  bin  much  streightned.  they  yearly 
build  many  ships,  hoyes,3  catches,4  and  go  on  with  there  fishing,  I suppose  they 
catch  nigh  iooooIb  worth  of  codd,  basse,  and  sturgeon,  and  some  are  about 
herrings  and  salmon  which  are  plentifull  here. 

The  country  abounds  with  minerals,  esp.  Iron  stone,  we  have  discovered 
about  10  or  12  severall  sorts,  which  I have  sent  to  Mr  Bucknar  an  apothecary 
at  Bucklarberry5  and  to  Dr-  Merrick6  dwelling  there,  where  you  may  see  them, 
if  you  please,  and  other  stones,  which  promise  better  things,  and  I hope,  will 
not  deceive  us,  though  yet  we  have  made  no  experience  of  them.  I doubt  not 
(by  the  grace  of  God)  but  we  shall  prosper  in  Iron  works,  and  make  plenty  of 
iron  spedily.  Truly,  I suppose,  that  all  things  would  prosper  in  this  place,  if  they 
would  give  liberty  of  conscience,  otherwise  I expect  nothing  to  thrive,  and  in- 
deed the  merchants  here  have  had  very  great  losses,  and  nothing  goes  on  merrily, 
but  every  day  we  have  breach  upon  breach,  both  in  Church  and  Commonwealth, 
between  magistrate,  ministers  people  members  non-members,  and  truly  things 
cannot  stand  thus  long  but  all  will  be  [lost] . The  non-members  who  are  most  in 
numbers,  as  rich  and  valiant  [as]  other  thinke  themselves  enslaved  here,  not 
having  liberty  to  bear  office,  or  give  a vote,  in  choosing  either  minister  or  mag- 
istrate, neither  are  they  permitted  to  have  ministers,  as  they  thinke  fitting,  to 
have  there  children  baptized  or  to  receive  the  sacrament,  though  many  have 
lived  here  many  yeares  and  pay  taxes  (which  here  are  very  great)  equall  if  not 
more  than  members,  are  prest  for  souldiers,  and  there  goods  taken  on  publicke 
faith  by  force  (which  is  in  worse  credit  here  than  in  England).  On  the  other 
side  the  members  doe  all  at  their  pleasure,  and  from  the  premises  you  may  draw 
a conclusion.  The  Colledge  at  Cambridge  goes  on  indifferently  well,  every  yeare 
some  graduates  proceed,  the  library  pretty  well  filled  with  bookes,  buildings  en- 
crease,  the  President  hath  a fair  house  newly  built,  likewise  there  is  a Presse 
erected.  I have  bin  there  but  once,  and  care  not  for  medling  with  them,  for 
truly  I cannot  doe  anything  cheerefully  here,  till  things  be  better  ordered  in 
Church  and  Commonwealth.  The  winters  here  are  very  cold,  nothing  can  be 

3 Small  coastal  vessels. 

4 Ketches. 

5 A street  near  the  Mansion  House,  London.  For  the  history  of  the  name,  cf.  John 
Stow,  Survey  of  London , ed.  W.  J.  Thoms  (London,  1842),  97-98. 

6 Christopher  Merret. 


1947]  Robert  Child  53 

done  comfortably  without  stoves,  which  God  willing  we  shall  procure  next  yeare. 
the  summer  is  hot  enough  for  vines,  I suppose;  Apples  and  Cherrys,  Peaches, 
Apricocks,  with  all  sorts  of  garden  ware  [?]  flourish  incredibly  heere.  Well, 
to  conclude,  the  unscasonablenes  of  the  weather  causeth  me  to  huddle  up  things 
rudely;  but  by  my  next  expect  things  better  ordered.  I have  sent  diverse  seeds 
to  Dr  Merrick,  and  shall  yearly  send  more  over  to  him,  if  I can  doe  you  or  any 
of  your  freinds  any  service  here  in  that  busincs  or  any  other  pray  let  me  beg 
imployment,  and  be  so  happy  as  to  have  some  correspondence  with  you,  that 
we  may  have  some  light  in  these  dark  corners.  At  this  present  with  my  love  to 
you  and  all  our  freinds,  I take  my  leave 

Your  loving  freind  Robert  Child. 

Mr.  Winthrop  the  elder  every  day  writes  particular  passages  of  the  country 
in  a great  book  which  he  freely  communicates  to  any  and  saves  me  a labour  in 
this  kind,  who  intended  the  same  busines.  at  Boston,  which  is  the  great  towne 
in  New  England  contayning  about  400  familyes  is  lately  erected  a free  schoole, 
by  putting  40lb  per  annum  upon  the  drawers  of  wine  in  this  place,  and  other 
wayes.  Mr.  Leader,  in  whose  house  1 soiourne  at  Boston,  remembers  his  love  to 
you,  and  desires  to  be  excused  for  his  neglecting  writing  according  to  his  promise. 

Yours  Robt-  Child. 


Annual  Meeting 

November,  1947 

THE  Annual  Meeting  of  the  Society  was  held  at  the 
Algonquin  Club,  No.  217  Commonwealth  Avenue,  Bos- 
ton, on  Friday,  21  November  1947,  at  a quarter  after 
seven  o’clock  in  the  evening,  the  President,  Augustus  Peabody 
Loring,  Jr.,  in  the  chair. 

With  the  consent  of  those  present,  the  reading  of  the  minutes 
of  the  last  Stated  Meeting  was  omitted. 

The  President  announced  the  death  on  1 8 May  1947  of  Mil- 
ton  Ellis,  a Corresponding  Member $ that  on  24  June  1947 
of  Evarts  Boutell  Greene,  a Corresponding  Member  $ that  on 
23  July  1947  of  Lawrence  Shaw  Mayo,  a Resident  Member ; 
that  on  9 September  1947  of  Frederick  Morton  Smith,  a 
Resident  Member ; that  on  29  October  1947  of  Hermann 
Frederick  Clarke,  a Resident  Member,  and  that  on  16  No- 
vember 1947  of  Lincoln  Colcord,  a Corresponding  Member. 

The  Corresponding  Secretary  reported  the  receipt  of  letters 
from  the  Most  Reverend  Richard  J.  Cushing,  the  Right  Rev- 
erend Norman  Burdett  Nash  and  Miss  Alice  Bache  Gould 
accepting  Honorary  Membership,  and  from  Mr.  Joseph  Breed 
Berry,  Mr.  Charles  Henry  Powars  Copeland,  Mr.  Sarell 
Everett  Gleason,  Mr.  George  Caspar  Homans,  Mr.  Mark 
DeWolfe  Howe,  Mr.  Frederick  Milton  Kimball  and  Mr. 
Chauncey  Cushing  Nash  accepting  Resident  Membership  in 
the  Society. 

The  Reverend  F rederick  Lewis  Weis,  of  Lancaster,  and  Mr. 
Kenneth  John  Conant,  of  Cambridge,  were  elected  Resident 
Members  of  the  Society. 

The  Annual  Report  of  the  Council  was  read  by  Mr.  Zecha- 
riah  Chafee,  Jr. 


1947] 


55 


Report  of  the  Council 
Report  of  the  Council 

IN  the  past  year  the  Society  has  held,  as  usual,  three  stated  meetings:  on 
19  December  1946  at  the  Club  of  Odd  Volumes;  on  20  February 
at  the  house  of  Mr.  Samuel  Eliot  Morison,  and  on  24  April  at  the  house 
of  Augustus  P.  Loring,  Jr.  The  attendance  has  been  about  the  same  as  in 
previous  years. 

The  following  members  have  been  elected  to  the  Society: 

Resident: 

Joseph  Breed  Berry 
Charles  Henry  Powars  Copeland 
Sarell  Everett  Gleason 
George  Caspar  Homans 
Mark  DeWolfe  Howe 
Frederick  Milton  Kimball 
Chauncey  Cushing  Nash 

Honorary : 

Richard  James  Cushing 
Alice  Bache  Gould 
Norman  Burdett  Nash 

In  the  autumn  of  1946,  Mr.  Forbes  indicated  his  wish  to  retire  as  Edi- 
tor, after  fifteen  years  of  devoted  service,  during  which  he  had  been  re- 
sponsible for  volumes  27,  28,  31,  32,  33  and  34  of  the  Society’s  Publi- 
cations. Consequently  on  19  December  1946  the  Council  appointed  Mr. 
Walter  Muir  Whitehill  to  succeed  Mr.  Forbes  as  Editor.  Wartime  re- 
strictions upon  the  use  of  paper  had  prevented  the  printing  of  any  volumes 
since  1943,  but  Mr.  Forbes  had  been  actively  at  work  in  preparing  manu- 
scripts for  future  publication  and  consequently  four  volumes  are  now  in 
various  stages  of  completion.  These  are  Transactions  (1943—1947),  a 
volume  of  Maine  land-grant  papers  (which  Mr.  Allis  has  been  editing), 
the  Massachusetts  Council  records  from  1689  to  1698,  and  a fourth  vol- 
ume of  Harvard  College  Records.  A supply  of  rag  paper  is  now  on  hand, 
and  these  volumes  will  be  issued  as  the  Society’s  funds  and  the  Editor’s 
time  permits. 

The  Society  has  continued  its  support  of  the  New  England  Quarterly , 
copies  of  which  are  sent  to  all  members  who  desire  them. 

During  the  year  we  have  lost  by  death  eleven  members,  an  unusually 
large  number. 


56  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [nov. 

Charles  Francis  Mason,  Resident,  1896,  died  28  February  1947. 
He  was  the  senior  member  of  the  Society  in  order  of  election  and  received 
our  greetings  at  the  time  of  our  last  annual  meeting.  Bursar  of  Harvard 
University  for  thirty-four  years,  long  an  officer  of  the  Watertown  His- 
torical Society  and  Moderator  of  the  First  Church  of  Watertown,  es- 
tablished in  1630. 

Alfred  Lawrence  Aiken,  Corresponding,  1926,  died  13  December 

1946.  During  his  membership  he  held  the  presidency  and  other  high  offices 
in  the  New  York  Life  Insurance  Company.  While  previously  living  in 
Massachusetts,  he  was  a leader  in  banking  and  served  as  a Trustee  of 
Clark  University,  Wellesley  College,  the  Worcester  Art  Museum,  and 
the  Boston  Symphony  Orchestra. 

Wilbur  Cortez  Abbott,  Resident,  1921,  died  3 February  1947. 
An  eminent  historian  who  migrated  from  New  Haven  to  Cambridge. 
Oliver  Cromwell  became  his  lifework,  but  he  was  able  to  give  odd  mo- 
ments to  peopling  the  past  with  shady  and  entertaining  characters  like 
Colonel  Blood,  stealer  of  the  British  Crown  jewels. 

Bentley  Wirt  Warren,  Resident,  1936,  died  27  February  1947. 
A distinguished  Boston  lawyer,  he  served  as  Trustee  of  Williams  and  Rad- 
cliffe  Colleges  and  the  Boston  Symphony  Orchestra,  and  had  an  im- 
portant part  in  many  public  activities  in  Massachusetts. 

Evarts  Boutell  Greene,  Corresponding,  1915,  died  24  June 

1947.  A teacher  of  history  at  the  University  of  Illinois  and  at  Columbia 
University,  his  publications  were  especially  concerned  with  the  colonial 
period. 

Frederick  Morton  Smith,  Resident,  1939,  died  9 September 
1947.  An  officer  in  various  Boston  wharf  companies,  he  assisted  in  carry- 
ing the  maritime  traditions  of  Massachusetts  into  the  present  day. 

Hermann  Frederick  Clarke,  Resident,  1934,  died  29  October 
1947.  A banker  and  collector,  who  devoted  his  leisure  to  the  study  of  co- 
lonial silversmiths,  he  was  the  author  of  books  on  John  Coney,  Jeremiah 
Dummer,  and  John  Hull. 

Lincoln  Colcord,  Corresponding,  1940,  died  16  November  1947. 
The  sea  was  in  his  blood.  Born  off  Cape  Horn  in  a bark,  after  boyhood 
he  was  cast  away  by  fate  on  the  shore  of  Penobscot  Bay,  where  he  looked 
for  the  vessels  that  had  sailed  by  in  former  years  and  reviewed  the  maritime 
adventures  of  other  men.  Escaping  from  our  landlocked  age,  he  shipped  in 
the  Ptarmigan  with  the  historian  of  Columbus  for  a stormier  passage  to  the 


1947]  Report  of  the  Treasurer  57 

West  Indies  than  Columbus  ever  knew.  His  monument  is  the  Penobscot 
Marine  Museum  at  Searsport  and  in  the  hearts  of  his  fellow- voyagers. 

Milton  Ellis,  Corresponding,  1933,  died  18  May  1947.  A pro- 
fessor at  the  University  of  Maine,  he  was,  as  Managing  Editor  of  the  New 
England  Quarterly y intimately  associated  with  the  projects  of  this  Society. 

Lawrence  Shaw  Mayo,  Resident,  1916,  died  23  July  1947.  A pa- 
tient scholar,  the  biographer  of  John  Endecott,  John  Winthrop,  John 
Wentworth  and  other  colonial  leaders,  he  was  engaged,  at  the  time  of  his 
death,  in  preparing  a fourth  volume  of  Harvard  College  Records  for  pub- 
lication by  this  Society. 

Allyn  Bailey  Forbes,  Resident,  1931,  died  21  January  1947.  As 
Director  of  the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  and  as  Editor  of  this  So- 
ciety’s publications  for  fifteen  years,  he  was  a scholar  of  meticulous  ac- 
curacy and  a valued  friend  to  all  who  concerned  themselves  with  the  New 
England  past.  A central  figure  at  all  gatherings  of  this  Society  grave  or 
gay,  we  shall  miss  him  sorely.  Ave  atque  vale ! 

The  Treasurer  submitted  his  Annual  Report  as  follows: 

Report  of  the  Treasurer 

In  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  the  By-laws,  the  Treasurer 
submits  his  Annual  Report  for  the  year  ending  14  November  1947. 

Statement  of  Assets  and  Funds,  14  November  1947 


ASSETS 


Cash: 

Income 

$1 1,913.26 

Loan  to  Principal 

10,449.46 

$1,463.80 

Investments  at  Book  Value: 

Bonds  (Market  Value  $138,098.51) 

*i39>537-°4 

Stocks  (Market  Value  $116,028.00) 

85,205.75 

Savings  Bank  Deposit 

3,244.70 

227,98749 

Total  Assets 

$229,451.29 

FUNDS 

Funds 

$212,482.33 

Unexpended  Income 

16,968.96 

Total  Funds 

$229,45  1.29 

58  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [nov. 


Income  Cash  Receipts  and  . 

Disbursements 

Balance,  14  November  1946 

$12,375.78 

RECEIPTS: 

Interest 

$2,901.26 

Dividends 

4,945.9° 

Annual  Assessments 

800.00 

Sales  of  Publications 

57.00 

8,704.16 

Total  Receipts  of  Income 

$21,079.94 

DISBURSEMENTS: 

New  England  Quarterly 

$2,600.00 

Editor’s  Salary 

L375-00 

Secretarial  Expense 

800.00 

Annual  Dinner 

589-95 

Storage 

300.76 

Notices  and  Expenses  of  Meetings 

141.70 

Postage,  Office  Supplies  and  Miscellaneous 

92.32 

Auditing  Services 

1 25.00 

Publications 

1,533.26 

Safe  Deposit  Box 

24.00 

General  Expense 

175.10 

Interest  on  Henry  H.  Edes  Memorial  Fund  added 

to  Principal 

300.40 

Interest  on  Sarah  Louisa  Edes  Fund  added  to  Prin- 

cipal 

1,109.19 

Total  Disbursements  of  Income 

9,166.68 

Balance  of  Income,  14  November  1947 

$1 1,913.26 

Report  of  the  Auditing 

Committee 

The  undersigned,  a committee  appointed  to  examine  the  accounts  of  the 

Treasurer  for  the  year  ended  14  November 

1947,  have  attended  to  their 

duty  by  employing  Messrs.  Stewart,  Watts  and  Bollong,  Public  Account- 

ants  and  Auditors,  who  have  made  an  audit  of  the  accounts  and  examined 
the  securities  on  deposit  in  Box  91  in  the  New  England  Trust  Company. 

We  herewith  submit  their  report,  which  has  been  examined  and  ac- 
cepted by  the  Committee. 

Willard  G.  Cogswell 
Arthur  S.  Pier 

A uditing  C ommittee 


1947]  Report  of  the  Auditing  Committee  59 

The  several  reports  were  accepted  and  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Publication. 

On  behalf  of  the  committee  appointed  to  nominate  officers 
for  the  ensuing  year  the  following  list  was  presented ; and  a 
ballot  having  been  taken,  these  gentlemen  were  unanimously 
elected: 

President  Augustus  Peabody  Loring,  Jr. 

Vice-Presidents  Hon.  Fred  Tarbell  Field 
Hon.  Robert  Walcott 

Recording  Secretary  Robert  Earle  Moody 

C orresfonding  Secretary  Zechariah  Chafee,  Jr. 

Treasurer  James  Melville  Hunnewell 

Registrar  Robert  Dickson  Weston 

Member  of  the  Council  for  Three  Years  Arthur  Stanwood  Pier 

Member  of  the  Council  for  One  Year  Robert  Ephraim  Peabody 

After  the  meeting  was  dissolved,  dinner  was  served.  The 
guests  of  the  Society  were  Admiral  R.  A.  Spruance,  Rear  Ad- 
miral M.  L.  Deyo,  Captain  J.  B.  Heffernan,  Captain  H.  B.  Hud- 
son, Lieutenant  Commander  Henry  Salomon,  Jr.,  Messrs.  Sam- 
uel Chamberlain,  Henry  Forbush  Howe,  David  McCord,  Rich- 
ard W.  Leopold,  Carleton  R.  Richmond,  Dwight  C.  Shepler, 
Sidney  T.  Strickland,  Vernon  D.  Tate  and  Thomas  J.  Wilson. 
The  Reverend  Henry  Wilder  Foote  said  grace. 

After  dinner  Mr.  Samuel  Eliot  Morison  read  the  May- 
flower Compact,  and  Admiral  R.  A.  Spruance,  President  of  the 
Naval  War  College,  Newport,  Rhode  Island,  addressed  the  So- 
ciety and  its  guests. 


December  Meeting,  1947 

A STATED  Meeting  of  the  Society  was  held  at  the  Club  of 
Odd  Volumes,  No.  77  Mount  Vernon  Street,  Boston,  on 
L Thursday,  18  December  1947,  at  three  o’clock  in  the 
afternoon,  the  President,  Augustus  Peabody  Loring,  Jr.,  in 
the  chair. 

The  records  of  the  Annual  Meeting  in  November  were  read 
and  approved. 

The  Corresponding  Secretary  reported  the  receipt  of  letters 
from  the  Reverend  Frederick  Lewis  Weis,  of  Lancaster,  and 
Mr.  Kenneth  John  Conant,  of  Cambridge,  accepting  Resident 
Membership  in  the  Society. 

The  Hon.  Leverett  Saltonstall,  a Resident  Member  since 
1931,  and  the  Hon.  Robert  F iske  Bradford  were  elected  Hon- 
orary Members,  and  Mr.  Samuel  Chamberlain,  of  Marble- 
head, Mr.  Julian  Lowell  Coolidge,  of  Cambridge,  Mr. 
Bartlett  Harding  Hayes,  Jr.,  of  Andover,  Dr.  Henry  For- 
bush  Howe,  of  Cohasset,  Mr.  Carleton  Rubira  Richmond, 
of  Milton,  and  Mr.  Sidney  Talbot  Strickland,  of  Plymouth, 
were  elected  Resident  Members  of  the  Society. 

Mr.  Charles  Eliot  Goodspeed  read  a paper  entitled: 

Extortion,  Captain  Turner,  and  the 
Widow  Stolion 
1 

IN  the  year  1825  James  Savage,  reviewing  the  trial  of  Robert  Keayne 
for  extortion  in  1639,  wrote:  “.  . . the  attempt  to  prevent  demand 
of  high  price  for  any  commodity,  however  willing  the  purchaser 
may  be  to  give  it,  is  preposterous  and  destructive  to  all  commerce  between 
man  and  man.”1  Fifty-nine  years  later  the  English  economist  Thorold 
Rogers  said,  “In  the  middle  ages,  to  regulate  prices  was  thought  to  be  the 
only  safe  course  whenever  what  was  sold  was  a necessary  of  life,  or  a nec- 
essary agent  in  industry.  Hence  our  forefathers  fixed  the  prices  of  pro- 

1 John  Winthrop,  “ The  History  of  New  England ” [Journal],  (Boston,  1825),  I. 
3*4  n. 


1947]  Extortion  in  Colonial  New  Haven  6 1 

visions,  and  tried  to  fix  the  price  of  labour  and  money.  . . . That  we  have 
tacitly  relinquished  the  practice  of  our  forefathers  is,  I repeat,  the  result 
of  the  experience  that  competition  is  sufficient  for  the  protection  of  the 
consumer.  But  I am  disposed  to  believe  that,  if  a contrary  experience  were 
to  become  sensible,  we  should  discredit  our  present  practice,  and  revive, 
it  may  be,  the  past,  at  least  in  some  directions.”2 

The  opinions  of  these  two  men  are  quoted  here  as  a reminder  (if  a re- 
minder be  necessary),  of  the  changed  attitude  towards  government  regu- 
lation of  industry  within  a comparatively  short  time.  With  a new  eco- 
nomic structure  of  society  has  come  the  fulfilment  of  Professor  Rogers’ 
prediction.  The  laissez-faireism  of  men  like  Savage  has  been  tossed  out  of 
the  window. 

The  measures  that  have  been  taken  to  control  labor  and  commerce  in 
the  United  States  during  recent  years  are  not  new.  They  revert  in  prin- 
ciple to  the  mediaeval  statutes  to  which  Professor  Rogers  referred.  They 
also,  which  more  closely  concerns  us,  follow  attempts  along  these  lines 
made  by  the  Bay  colonists  of  Massachusetts.  Government  control  of 
wages,  prices  and  profits  in  the  United  States  today  raises  questions  that 
are  still  debated,  but,  as  has  often  been  said,  in  New  England  three  cen- 
turies ago  no  one  dreamed  of  challenging  the  right  of  magistrates  to  dic- 
tate the  wages  paid  to  workmen,  the  prices  set  on  commodities  and  the 
percentage  of  profit  allowed  to  merchants.  The  fifty  or  more  orders  on 
these  subjects  passed  by  the  Massachusetts  courts  between  1630  and  1650 
show  how  important  they  were  thought  in  that  colony.  Reading  these 
measures  for  the  first  time  one  is  surprised  to  see  the  extent  to  which  they 
were  aimed  at  wage-earners.  Winthrop  repeatedly  declaims  against  the 
exactions  of  laborers.  Labor  legislation  in  Massachusetts  began  with  an 
order  of  the  Court  of  Assistants  passed  at  its  first  session  in  August,  1630, 3 
which  placed  a ceiling  on  wages  and  became  the  forerunner  of  laws  now 
in  force,  more  favorable  to  the  worker. 

The  subject  of  wages,  however,  enters  only  incidentally  into  the  fol- 
lowing account  of  Captain  Turner,  and’ it  has  nothing  to  do  with  Turner’s 
complaint  against  Mrs.  Jane  Stolion.  In  these  subjects,  extortionate  profits 
in  trade  is  the  economic  background.  Turner’s  relations  with  Mrs.  Sto- 
lion are  in  themselves  unimportant,  but  Turner  was  a useful  man  and  an 
appreciation  of  his  services  to  both  the  Bay  Colony  and  New  Haven  is 
overdue.  Mrs.  Stolion  is  another  pack  of  goods.  A hard  and  grasping 

2 J.  E.  Thorold  Rogers,  Six  Centuries  of  Work  and  Wages  (New  York,  1884),  139, 
140. 

3 Records  . . . of  Massachusetts  Bay  . . . (Boston,  1853—1854),  I.  74. 


6 2 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

shopkeeper,  no  religionist,  I wonder  what  visions  of  gain  lured  the  wid- 
owed Jane  to  trust  her  life  and  goods  to  the  bleak  Atlantic  and  her  future 
to  an  association  with  the  censorious  followers  of  John  Davenport. 

The  words  “extortion”  and  “oppression”  were  in  common  use  in  early 
New  England.  They  were  used  interchangeably,  chiefly  to  indicate  ei- 
ther the  excessive  wage-demands  of  laborers  or  the  excessive  profits  of 
shopkeepers,  especially  in  circumstances  where  the  buyer’s  necessity  gave 
an  undue  advantage  to  the  seller  of  services  or  of  merchandise.  Practices 
of  this  sort  have  been  condemned  as  immoral  or  anti-social  from  the  times 
of  Moses  and  the  Hebrew  prophets.  Saint  Paul  wrote  in  one  of  his  letters 
to  the  Corinthian  church:  “.  . . if  any  man  that  is  called  a brother  be  a 
fornicator,  or  covetous,  or  an  idolator,  or  a railer,  or  a drunkard,  or  an 
extortioner;  with  such  an  one  no  not  to  eat.”4  A dictum  less  exclusive 
but  wider  in  scope  and  carrying  a greater  weight  of  authority  to  the  Mas- 
sachusetts puritan  of  1630  was  the  Levitical  injunction:  “And  if  thou  sell 
ought  unto  thy  neighbour,  or  buyest  ought  of  thy  neighbour’s  hand,  ye 
shall  not  oppress  one  another.”5  Today,  the  words  oppression  and  extor- 
tion have  other  meanings.  Here,  they  are  only  used  as  men  like  John  Cot- 
ton and  John  Winthrop  would  have  understood  and  applied  them. 

An  illustration  of  these  remarks  is  supplied  from  New  Haven  by  the 
defendant’s  response  to  a charge  of  slander  printed  in  the  Town  Records, 
2 November  1658: 

Jo.  Thompson,  being  warned  to  the  Court  to  answere  Tho.  Morris  in  an  ac- 
tion of  defamation,  Tho.  Morris  being  disabled  to  attend  the  Court  by  reason 
of  sicknes,  Gervase  Boykin  his  Attorney  declared  that  the  said  John  Thompson 
had  spoken  reproachfully  concerning  the  said  Tho.  Morris;  he  being  at  Jere- 
miah Osburnes,  they  speakeing  to  him  of  the  dearness  of  commodities,  he  an- 
swered, how  could  they  be  otherwise  when  workemen  take  so  deare  for  their 
worke,  instancing  Tho.  Morris,  who  demanded  as  he  said  5s  a day,  & Good- 
man Peakins  3s  a day.  Another  time  being  at  Sargeant  Jefferies,  he  said  that  he 
was  a 1001  the  worse  for  Tho.  Morris,  and  that  he  had  opprest  him,  and  that 
he  had  not  walked  according  to  rules  of  righteousness  towards  him,  with  other 
bad  words.  . . .6 

II 

At  the  height  of  the  immigration  tide  in  1635  complaint  was  made  in 
Boston  that  goods  brought  for  sale  by  the  emigrant  ships  were  excessively 

4 1 Corinthians,  V.  11. 

5 Leviticus,  xxv.  14. 

6 New  Haven  T own  Records  (New  Haven,  1917),  1.  365.  Cotton  Mather  has  some 
remarks  on  oppression  in  his  Magnalia  (ed.,  1855),  II.  398-399. 


1947]  Extortion  in  Colonial  New  Haven  63 

priced.  It  is  not  clear  that  this  grievance  was  chargeable  to  the  adven- 
turers who  owned  the  goods  or  to  the  shopmen  who  bought  them  for  re- 
sale in  the  town.  Either  way,  the  transactions  on  shipboard  bred  disorder. 
Winthrop  hints  at  the  doings  on  these  occasions.  Their  precise  nature  can 
only  be  conjectured,  but  as  the  imported  merchandise  was  greatly  needed, 
a crowd  of  shopkeepers  and  thrifty  householders  doubtless  competed  for 
it;  and,  we  may  imagine,  the  riffraff  of  the  town  came  along  to  carouse 
with  the  sailors  and  join  in  their  rowdy  songs. 

Conduct  of  this  sort  was  not  tolerable  in  Massachusetts  and  the  Gen- 
eral Court  took  action  for  its  suppression.  On  the  fourth  of  March  an 
order  was  passed  to  prohibit  all  purchases  from  the  ships  except  under  li- 
cense from  the  Governor.  A partnership-committee  was  appointed  with 
authority  to  board  the  vessels  and  purchase  such  goods  as  were  judged 
“to  be  usefull  for  the  country,”  these  to  be  stored  “in  some  maggasen, 
neere  to  the  place  where  the  shipp  anchors,”  and  for  twenty  days  offered 
for  sale  “after  v1  per  centum  profitt,  & not  above.”7  Nine  men  [from 
Cambridge,  Charlestown,  Dorchester,  Ipswich,  Roxbury,  Salem,  Sau- 
gus and  Watertown]  were  selected  to  supply  the  necessary  capital  and 
put  the  measure  into  effect.  Captain  Nathaniel  Turner  [of  Saugus]  was 
first  on  the  list  of  those  named. 

The  scheme  did  not  work  and  after  four  months’  trial  the  prohibitory 
order  was  cancelled.8  On  which,  it  may  be  presumed,  the  committee  dis- 
posed of  the  goods  that  were  piling  up  in  its  warehouse  and  shut  up  shop. 
Eight  months  later,  in  modified  form,  the  order  was  revived.9  The  new 
order  omitted  the  provision  for  a sales  agency  and  the  prohibitions  were 
limited  to  the  purchase  and  resale  of  “provision  of  victualls.”  Evasions 
of  this  act  followed,  however,  and  at  the  next  General  Court  it,  too,  was 
repealed.1  Winthrop  sums  up  the  business  in  his  journal.  He  says:  “For 
preventing  the  loss  of  time,  and  drunkenness,  which  sometimes  happened, 
by  people’s  running  to  the  ships,  and  the  excessive  prices  of  commodities, 
it  was  ordered,  that  one  in  each  town  should  buy  for  all,  etc.,  and  should 
retain  the  same  within  twenty  days  at  five  per  hundred,  if  any  came  to 
buy  in  that  time.  But  this  took  no  good  effect;  for  most  of  the  people 

7 Records  of  . . . Massachusetts  Bay  . . . , i.  141— 142. 

8 Id.,  149.  9 Id.,  1 66. 

1 Id.,  174.  A transaction  in  which  Winthrop’s  “brother  [Hugh]  Peter”  bought  at  a 
round  profit  to  its  owners  the  consignment  of  provisions  on  a ship  (“the  Charity,  of 
Dartmouth”)  that  arrived  in  Boston  in  1636,  illustrates  a phase  of  the  existing  con- 
ditions. Peter’s  purchase,  for  benefit  of  the  Colony  towns,  included  thirty-nine  hogs- 
heads of  meal,  twenty-five  of  peas,  eight  of  oatmeal  and  forty  of  malt.  This,  Win- 
throp says,  “saved  the  country  £200.” 


64  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

would  not  buy,  except  they  might  buy  for  themselves;  and  the  merchants 
appointed  could  not  disburse  so  much  money,  etc. ; and  the  seamen  were 
much  discontented,  yet  some  of  them  brought  their  goods  on  shore  and 
sold  them  there.”2 

Although  these  measures  failed  they  might  have  been  taken  for  a 
warning  to  those  traders,  whether  forestalled,  engrossers  or  regrators3 
whose  operations  seriously  increased  the  price  of  commodities.  Imported 
goods  were  urgently  needed,  not  only  for  the  original  settlers  of  the  Bay 
Colony,  but  also  for  newcomers  whose  rapidly  increasing  numbers  were 
causing  inflation.  Nevertheless,  the  evil  of  oppressive  prices  grew,  bearing 
fruit  five  years  later  in  the  notorious  case  of  extortion  in  which  Robert 
Keayne,  the  leading  shopkeeper  of  Boston  and  founder  of  the  Ancient 
and  Honorable  Artillery  Company  was  the  defendant. 

In  the  attempt  to  suppress  extortion  in  Massachusetts,  Nathaniel  Turn- 
er, of  whose  English  antecedents  I have  no  information,  is  seen  to  have 
been  an  agent. 

From  the  fact  that  Turner  applied  for  admission  as  a freeman  in  the 
Massachusetts  Company  in  October,  1630,  it  has  been  inferred  that  he 
was  one  of  the  Winthrop  company  that  came  over  in  the  summer  of  that 
year.  He  settled  at  Saugus  (renamed,  Lynn)  and  in  1632  was  made  a 

2 Winthrop,  “History  of  New  England”  [Journal]  (Boston,  1853),  I.  192. 

3 “A  Forestaller  is  he,  that  buyeth  or  causeth  to  bee  bought,  or  maketh  contract  or 
promise  for  the  having  or  buying  of  any  victuall  or  wares,  comming  by  land  or 
water  towardes  any  Faire  or  Market  to  be  solde,  or  comming  from  beyond  the  Sea 
towards  anie  Citie,  Port,  Haven,  Creek,  or  rode  of  this  Realme,  to  bee  solde,  before 
the  same  shalbe  in  the  Faire  or  Market,  Citie,  Port  or  Haven  readie  to  be  sold:  Or 
that  by  any  meanes  maketh  motion  to  any  person  for  enhauncing  the  price  of  the 
same:  or  that  doth  disswade,  moove,  or  stirre  any  person  (comming  to  the  market 
or  faire)  to  forbeare  to  bring  any  of  the  same  to  any  faire,  market,  citie,  Port,  or 
haven  to  be  sold. 

A Regrator  is  he  that  regrateth  or  getteth  into  his  possession,  in  any  faire,  or  mar- 
ket, any  corne,  wine,  fish,  butter,  cheese,  candles,  tallow,  sheepe,  lambes,  calves, 
swine,  pigges,  geese,  capons,  hennes,  chickins,  pigeons,  conies,  or  other  dead  victuall 
whatsoever  brought  to  any  faire  or  market  to  be  sold,  & selleth  the  same  again  in 
any  faire  or  market  kept  there,  or  within  foure  miles  thereof. 

An  Ingrosser  is  he  that  ingrosseth  or  getteth  into  his  hands  by  buying,  contract, 
or  promise  taking  (other  than  by  demise,  lease  or  grant,  of  land  or  of  tithe)  any 
corne  growing  in  the  fieldes,  or  other  corne  or  graine,  butter,  cheese,  fish,  or  other 
dead  victuall,  within  England,  to  the  intent  to  sel  the  same  againe.  But  such  as  doe 
buy  barley  or  oates  (without  forestalling)  and  turne  the  same  into  malt  or  oatmeale, 
and  sell  it  again:  and  such  victuallers  of  all  sortes,  as  buy  victuall  (without  fore- 
stalling) and  sell  it  by  retaile  againe,  and  Badgers  and  Drovers  (being  lawfully 
licenced  and  not  abusing  their  licences)  are  excepted.  So  be  al  buyers  of  wines,  oiles, 
spices,  and  other  forraine  victualles  brought  from  beyond  sea  hither,  except  fish  and 
salt  onely,  5.  Ed.  6.  cap.  14:  5.  Elizab.  ca.  12:  13.  Elizab.  cap.  25.”  William  Lam- 
bard,  Eirenarcha:  or  of  The  office  of  the  Justices  of  Peace  (London,  1594). 


1947]  Extortion  in  Colonial  New  Haven  65 

freeman.  His  residence  in  New  England  was  about  equally  divided  be- 
tween Massachusetts  and  New  Haven.  In  Massachusetts  he  was  em- 
ployed in  various  colony  affairs.  His  services  there  may  be  briefly  sum- 
marized. 

In  1634  he  was  named  Captain  of  the  military  company  at  Saugus.  In 
the  years  1634—1636  he  was  a Deputy  to  the  General  Court.  He  was  ap- 
pointed to  the  Salem  Quarterly  Court  1636—1637.  He  was  a member  of 
various  committees  for  establishing  boundaries.  One  of  the  committee  for 
building  fortifications  at  Castle  Island,  Charlestown,  and  Dorchester,  he 
contributed  £10  towards  the  Castle  Island  “Sea  fort.”  His  name  is  the 
twelfth  on  the  earliest  membership  list  of  the  Military  Company4  and  he 
was  one  of  the  four  Massachusetts  commanders  under  Endecott  in  the 
military  excursion  that  began  the  Pequot  War.  Underhill,  in  his  narrative 
of  this  affair  at  Block  Island  in  1636,  tells  of  Turner’s  alertness  and  cour- 
age in  the  irregular  fighting  with  the  natives.  He  says  that  on  one  occa- 
sion “Captain  Turner  stepping  aside  to  a swamp,  met  with  some  few 
Indians  and  charged  upon  them,  changing  some  few  bullets  for  arrows,” 
by  which  “Himself  received  a shot  upon  the  breast  of  his  corselet,  as  if  it 
had  been  pushed  with  a pike,  and  if  he  had  not  had  it  on,  he  had  lost  his 
life.”5 

After  Endecott  and  his  command  returned  to  Boston  late  in  1636 
Turner  did  not  stay  long  in  Massachusetts.  Two  years  had  not  passed 
before  he  joined  the  company  of  recent  comers  from  London  to  the  Bay, 
who,  under  the  leadership  of  John  Davenport  and  his  wealthy  parishioner 
Theophilus  Eaton,  without  colonial  status  made  a settlement  at  the  mouth 
of  the  Quinnipiac  River  in  Connecticut. 

From  the  time  when  Turner  came  back  from  Block  Island  to  the  day 
that  he  left  Boston  for  good,  eighteen  months  elapsed.  What  he  did  dur- 
ing some  of  this  time  is  a mystery.  The  historian  of  Lynn  says  that  in  1637 
he  took  part  in  the  campaign  in  which  the  Pequot  tribe  of  Indians  was 
destroyed.6  Convincing  evidence  to  fortify  this  statement  is  lacking.  The 

4 This  body,  “The  Ancient  and  Honorable  Artillery  Company”  of  today  was  gath- 
ered not  later  than  February,  1638.  It  was  licensed  by  the  General  Court  8 June  but 
did  not  receive  full  recognition  until  13  March  1639  when,  designated  as  “the 
Millitary  Company  of  the  Massachusetts,”  its  powers  were  defined  and  provision 
for  its  support  was  made  through  a grant  of  1,000  acres  of  land.  Winthrop,  “ The 
History  of  New  England ” [Journal],  I.  305  ; Records  of  . . . Massachusetts  Bay  . . . 
1.  231,  250-251. 

5 Underhill,  Newes  from  America  (London,  1638),  in  3 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.y 
vi.  6. 

6 Alonzo  Lewis,  History  of  Lynn  (Boston,  1829),  61. 


66 


The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

question  is  debatable  and  will  not  be  discussed  here.7  It  may  be  mentioned, 
however,  that  on  17  May  1637,  the  day  on  which  Israel  Stoughton  was 
put  in  command  of  the  Massachusetts  troops  taking  part  in  the  Pequot 
expedition,  Turner  was  appointed  to  a committee  for  providing  men, 
munitions  and  provisions  for  the  campaign.8 

Several  reasons  why  he  left  Massachusetts  may  be  suggested.  Turner 
had  considerable  ability  in  both  civil  and  military  affairs  and  in  material 
things  he  was  well-to-do  above  most  of  his  neighbors.  If,  as  may  be  imag- 
ined, Turner  entertained  ambitions,  he  could  have  seen  little  opportunity 
in  the  Bay  Colony  for  the  advancement  that  his  intelligence,  military 
skill  and  soundness  in  the  puritan  faith  warranted,  for,  there,  in  the  words 
of  Trumbull,  “the  principal  men  were  fixed  in  the  chief  seats  of  govern- 
ment which  they  were  likely  to  keep.” 

Another  circumstance  may  have  prompted  Turner  to  emigrate.  Some 
of  the  Bay  towns  were  becoming  over-settled.  From  Saugus,  Turner’s 
neighbors  were  leaving,  one  group  going  to  Long  Island  and  another  to 
Cape  Cod.9  John  Cotton,  then  in  the  curious,  if  not  awkward  situation  of 
lodging  his  friend,  Anne  Hutchinson,  under  duress,  while  he  entertained 
her  inquisitor,  John  Davenport,  beneath  the  same  roof — John  Cotton 
himself  (though  for  a different  reason)  was  toying  with  the  thought  of 
moving  to  Quinnipiac.1 

But  there  was  a more  important  consideration  than  either  of  these. 
Turner  was  orthodox  and  the  congregations  about  him  were  in  turmoil. 
They  were,  in  the  words  of  the  hymn 

...  by  schisms  rent  asunder,  by  heresies  distrest. 

In  Saugus  the  church  was  divided  by  the  recent  ministry  of  the  Rev- 
erend Stephen  Bachelir.  Scarcely  two  years  had  passed  since  Salem  and 
Boston  were  at  odds  over  Roger  Williams;  and  now,  just  as  Eaton  and 
Davenport  were  about  to  lead  their  followers  to  the  shores  of  Connecti- 
cut, Boston  almost  to  a man  (and  woman)  was  infected  with  the  theo- 

7 Those  parts  of  the  records  of  the  time  that  give  color  to  Lewis’s  claim  may  be 
studied  by  any  who  are  interested.  Pertinent  passages  can  be  found  in  Winthrop, 
“ History  of  New  England ” [Journal],  I.  254;  Records  of  . . . Massachusetts  Bay 
. . . , I.  112,  175,  190— 191,  195,  197,  2325  Records  and  Files  of  the  Quarterly  Courts 
of  Essex  County , Massachusetts , 1 (Salem,  19 11),  5,  7.  Besides  these  references  the 
accounts  of  the  Pequot  War  given  by  contemporary  writers  should  be  consulted. 

8 Records  of  . . . Massachusetts  Bay  . . . , 1.  195. 

9 Records  of  the  Colony  of  New  Plymouth  . . , I.  57,  895  Hubbard,  General  His- 
tory of  New  England  (Boston,  1815),  244—245. 

1 Winthrop,  A Short  Story  . . . 1644,  in  Antinomianism  in  the  Colony  of  Massachu- 
setts Bay}  C.  F.  Adams,  Editor  (Boston,  1894),  225,  361,  388. 


1947]  Extortion  in  Colonial  New  Haven  67 

logical  vagaries2 — the  “schismatical  singularities” — seditiously  promul- 
gated by  Mistress  Hutchinson.  Surrounded  by  these  manifestations  of  dis- 
cord in  the  most  vital  affairs  of  the  Bay  Colony,  it  is  not  surprising  that 
Turner,  whose  house  had  been  destroyed  by  fire  not  long  before,  threw 
in  his  lot  with  Davenport’s  people.  Skilled  as  he  was  in  the  use  of  arms, 
the  founders  of  New  Haven  found  in  Turner  a valuable  recruit. 

Ill 

Just  when  Turner  and  his  family  left  Massachusetts  is  not  known.3 
Probably  they  were  in  the  company  that  sailed  for  Quinnipiac  on  30 
March  1638.  It  is  certain  that  Turner  was  domiciled  in  New  Haven  when 
the  settlement  there  was  organized  in  1639.  He  was  one  eleven  men 
appointed  in  June  to  the  foundation  work  of  the  church;  in  October  he 
was  elected  Deputy  to  the  New  Haven  Plantation  Court.  The  following 
year,  having  been  chosen  Captain  of  the  Guard,  brother  Turner’s  position 
as  one  of  the  top-notch  men  in  the  quasi-colony  was  assured.4 

Eaton  and  Davenport,  the  leaders  of  the  infant  community  in  which 
Turner  was  now  established,  were  described  by  Cotton  Mather  as  the 
“Moses  and  Aaron”  of  New  Haven.  The  men  who  led  their  followers  to 
the  Canaan  of  New  England  were — again  Mather — “as  holy  and  as 
prudent  and  as  genteel  persons  as  most  that  ever  visited  these  nooks  of 
America.”  Their  plan  was  to  settle  in  Massachusetts  but  for  several  rea- 
sons it  was  decided  to  seek  another  place.  Quinnipiac,  an  Indian  town  at 
the  mouth  of  the  river  of  that  name  in  Connecticut,  was  chosen,  its  com- 
modious harbor  being  a prime  consideration. 

2 On  the  antinomianism  controversy,  Cotton  Mather  remarks:  “ ’Tis  believed,  that 
Multitudes  of  Persons,  who  took  in  with  both  Parties,  did  never  to  their  dying  Hour 
understand  what  their  Difference  was;  . . . Nevertheless  there  did  arise  in  the  Land 
a Distinction  between  such  as  were  under  a Covenant  of  Works,  and  such  as  were 
under  a Covenant  of  Grace  ; . . . The  Disturbance  proceeded  from  thence  into  all 
the  General  Affairs  of  the  publick:  the  Expedition  against  the  Pequot-Indians  was 
most  shamefully  discouraged,  because  the  Army  was  too  much  under  a Covenant  of 
Works ; and  the  Magistrates  began  to  be  contemned  as  being  of  a Legal  Sfirit , and 
having  therewithal  a tang  of  Antichrist  in  them.  . . .”  Magnolia  Christi  Americana 
(1702),  book  vii,  14. 

3 Turner  had  six  children,  whose  names  with  some  facts  concerning  them  are  given 
in  Savage’s  Genealogical  Dictionary . Three  of  these  children  are  also  mentioned 
(one,  discreditably),  in  the  New  Haven  Town  Records.  Of  Mrs.  Turner  little  ap- 
pears beyond  the  information  that  after  the  death  of  her  husband  she  was  married 
to  a Dutchman,  Samuel  Van  Goodenhausen,  admitted  as  a free  burgess  of  the  town 
in  1647.  Goodenhausen’s  name  frequents  the  town  records,  some  of  the  references 
being  concerned  with  the  inheritances  of  his  step-children. 

4 Records  of  the  Colony  and  Plantation  of  New  Haven  (Hartford,  1857),  16,  21, 
40. 


68 


The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  emphasize  the  commercial  side  of  the  settlement. 
Davenport,  the  religious  leader  (who  also  participated  in  some  commer- 
cial undertakings),  planned  to  establish  a rigid  church  order,  with  legis- 
lation based  on  the  Code  of  Laws  for  Massachusetts,5  compiled  by  his 
friend  Cotton,  for  which  the  Word  of  God  was  fundamental  authority, 
while  Eaton,  the  Governor,  and  his  fellow-merchants,  looked  for  a speedy 
and  profitable  return  on  their  capital.  Though  the  conduct  of  their  enter- 
prises probably  differed  in  no  way  from  the  general  practice  of  the  day, 
the  development  of  a commercial  spirit  “taken  up  with  the  income  of  a 
large  profit”  was  criticized  by  a contemporary  writer,6  whose  censure 
points  to  what  has  been  called  “the  ‘perpetual  dilemma’  of  the  religious 
community  in  secular  society,”  the  “in  the  world  but  not  of  the  world,” 
of  New  Testament  teaching.  Though  the  tender  conscience  of  Edward 
Johnson  led  him  thus  to  rebuke  the  merchants  of  both  New  Haven  and 
Massachusetts  it  is  highly  improbable  that  these  men  were  aware  of  a 
variance  between  the  precepts  of  religion  and  their  commercial  ambition. 
Yet  the  spiritual  dangers  of  their  circumstances  were  apparent  to  Daven- 
port when  he  preached  his  first  sermon  (the  substance  of  which  has  not 
been  preserved)  from  Matt,  iv:  I,  “Then  was  Jesus  led  up  into  the  wil- 
derness to  be  tempted  of  the  devil.”  How  an  attempt  to  enforce  the  code 
of  ethics  set  forth  by  John  Cotton  in  connection  with  the  Keayne  extor- 

5 Isabel  M.  Calder,  “John  Cotton  and  the  New  Haven  Colony,”  New  England 
Quarterly , ill  (1930),  82—94. 

6 Captain  Edward  Johnson,  who  attributed  the  loss  of  ships  voyaging  on  commer- 
cial ventures  to  “the  correcting  hand  of  the  Lord  upon  his  N.  E.  people.”  He 
writes:  “.  . . the  Lord  was  pleased  to  command  the  wind  and  Seas  to  give  us  a jog 
on  the  elbow,  by  sinking  the  very  chief  of  our  shipping  in  the  deep,  and  splitting 
them  in  shivers  against  the  shores  5 a very  goodly  Ship  called  the  Seaforce  was  cast 
away  . . . : as  also  another  ship  set  forth  by  the  Merchants  of  New-haven,  of  which 
the  godly  Mr,  Lamberton  went  Master,  neither  ship,  persons,  nor  goods  ever  heard 
of  . . . with  divers  others  which  might  be  here  inserted ; this  seemed  the  sorer  afflic- 
tion to  these  N.  E.  people,  because  many  godly  men  lost  their  lives,  and  abundantly 
the  more  remarkable,  because  the  Lord  was  pleased  to  forbid  any  such  things  to  be- 
fal  his  people  in  their  passage  hither;  herein  these  people  read,  as  in  great  capital 
letters,  their  suddain  forgetfulness  of  the  Lords  former  received  mercy  in  his  won- 
derful preservation,  bringing  over  so  many  scores  of  ships,  and  thousands  of  per- 
sons, without  miscarriage  of  any,  to  the  wonderment  of  the  whole  world  that  shall 
hear  of  it,  but  more  especially  were  the  Merchants  and  traders  themselves  sensible 
of  the  hand  of  the  Lord  out  against  them,  who  were  in  some  of  the  ships,  and  had 
their  lives  given  them  for  a prey.  . . . W onder-W  or  king  Providence  of  Sions  Saviour 
in  New  England , W.  F.  Poole,  Editor  (Andover,  1867),  214— 215. 

It  is  of  interest  to  find  a somewhat  similar  criticism  by  Francis  Parkman,  who  in 
an  introductory  note  to  Pioneers  of  France  in  the  New  World  says  that  in  early  New 
England  “in  defiance  of  the  four  Gospels,  assiduity  in  pursuit  of  gain  was  promoted 
to  the  rank  of  a duty,  and  thrift  and  godliness  were  linked  in  equivocal  wedlock.” 


1947]  Extortion  in  Colonial  New  Haven  69 

tion  case  in  16397  would  have  been  regarded  by  the  traders  of  Boston,  or 
of  New  Haven  where  Cotton’s  Code  of  Laws  proposed  for  Massachusetts 
was  taken  as  a pattern,  is  an  interesting  speculation. 

New  Haven  received  its  name  by  designation  of  the  General  Court  in 
September,  1640.  Excepting  a seaport  of  that  name  on  the  Solent  (whose 
association  with  the  Quinnipiac  settlers,  if  any,  I have  not  discovered) 
the  name  is  not  found  in  England,  but  its  general  significance,  indicating 
“a  place  of  shelter,  safety  or  retreat”;  the  “happy  harbour  of  God’s 
saints”  is  obvious. 

In  its  early  days  the  New  Haven  settlement,  as  has  been  said,  looked 
to  Massachusetts  for  leadership,  particularly  in  legislation.  Yet  the  first 
wage  and  price  order  passed  by  the  New  Haven  court  was  more  com- 
prehensive in  scope  and  detail  than  any  similar  measure  adopted  in  Mas- 
sachusetts up  to  that  time.8  In  June,  1641,  less  than  eight  months  after 

7 The  “rules  of  direction”  suggested  by  Cotton  for  such  cases,  as  quoted  by  Win- 
throp,  are: 

Some  false  principles  were  these : — 

1.  That  a man  might  sell  as  dear  as  he  can,  and  buy  as  cheap  as  he  can.  2.  If  a 
man  lose  by  casualty  of  sea,  etc.,  in  some  of  his  commodities,  he  may  raise  the  price 
of  the  rest.  3.  That  he  may  sell  as  he  bought,  though  he  paid  too  dear,  etc.,  and 
though  the  commodity  be  fallen,  etc.  4.  That,  as  a man  may  take  the  advantage  of 
his  own  skill  or  ability,  so  he  may  of  another’s  ignorance  or  necessity.  5.  Where  one 
gives  time  for  payment,  he  is  to  take  like  recompense  of  one  as  of  another. 

The  rules  for  trading  were  these : — 

1.  A man  may  not  sell  above  the  current  price,  i.e.,  such  a price  as  is  usual  in  the 
time  and  place,  and  as  another  (who  knows  the  worth  of  the  commodity)  would 
give  for  it,  if  he  had  occasion  to  use  it;  as  that  is  called  current  money,  which  every 
man  will  take,  etc.  2.  When  a man  loseth  in  his  commodity  for  want  of  skill,  etc., 
he  must  look  at  it  as  his  own  fault  or  cross,  and  therefore  must  not  lay  it  upon  an- 
other. 3.  Where  a man  loseth  for  casualty  of  sea,  or,  etc.,  it  is  a loss  cast  upon  him- 
self by  providence,  and  he  may  not  ease  himself  of  it  by  casting  it  upon  another;  for 
so  a man  should  seem  to  provide  against  all  providences,  etc.,  that  he  should  never 
lose;  but  w’here  there  is  a scarcity  of  the  commodity,  there  men  may  raise  their 
price;  for  now  it  is  a hand  of  God  upon  the  commodity,  and  not  the  person.  4.  A 
man  may  not  ask  any  more  for  his  commodity  than  his  selling  price,  as  Ephron  to 
Abraham,  the  land  is  worth  thus  much.  “ The  History  of  New  England ” [Journal], 
1.  381-382. 

s In  preparing  this  order  the  New  Haven  Court  doubtless  had  before  it  (in  manu- 
script form)  Cotton’s  draft  of  laws  for  Massachusetts.  Paragraphs  one  and  three  of 
Cotton’s  chapters  on  “Commerce”  read:  1.  First,  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  gover- 
nor, with  one  or  more  of  the  council,  to  appoint  a reasonable  rate  of  prizes  upon  all 
such  commodities  as  are,  out  of  the  ships,  to  be  bought  and  sold  in  the  country. 
3.  To  the  intent  that  all  oppression  in  buying  and  selling  may  be  avoided,  it  shall 
be  lawful  for  the  judges  in  every  town,  with  the  consent  of  the  free  burgesses,  to 
appoint  certain  selectmen,  to  set  reasonable  rates  upon  all  commodities,  and  pro- 
portionably  t:>  limit  the  wages  of  workmen  and  labourers;  and  the  rates  agreed  upon 
by  them,  and  ratified  by  the  judges,  to  bind  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  town.  The  like 


70  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

the  first  General  Court  convened,  that  Court  passed  an  order  of  consid- 
erable length  in  which  hours  of  labor  and  rates  of  pay  for  services  were 
dictated.  Laborers,  planters,  mowers,  boatmen,  thatchers,  carpenters, 
joiners,  plasterers,  bricklayers,  coopers,  ship-carpenters  “and  the  like” 
found  their  daily  wages  fixed.  The  price  of  building  material,  such  as 
planks,  clapboards,  shingles,  lime,  etc.,  was  prescribed.  Piecework  also  was 
included.  As  house  lots  in  New  England  were  generally  enclosed9  and 
the  protection  of  field  crops  from  depredation  was  of  major  importance, 
the  paragraph  in  which  the  charges  allowed  for  fencing  are  fixed  is  quoted 
below  as  a specimen  of  the  regulations  adopted  in  this  comprehensive 
statute. 

Fenceing  with  pales,  as  houslotts,  now  are,  for  felling  and  cleaveing  posts  and 
rails,  crosscutting,  hewing,  mortising,  digging  holes,  setting  up  and  nailing  on 
the  pales,  the  worke  being  in  all  the  parts  well  wrought  and  finished,  not  above 
2s  a rod,  butt  in  this  price  pales  and  carting  of  the  stuffe  not  included.  Fencing 
with  5 railes,  substantial!  posts,  good  railes,  well  wrought,  sett  upp  and  rammed, 
that  pigs,  swine,  goates  and  other  cattell  may  be  kept  out,  not  above  2s  a rod. 
Fencing  with  3 railes,  good  stuff,  well  wrought  and  finished,  not  above  i8d 
the  rod.1 

The  measure  from  which  these  provisions  are  taken  was  not  concerned 
with  wages  and  prices  alone.  The  hand  of  Captain  Turner  appears  in  an 
earlier  section  where  the  profit  on  imported  goods  is  determined.  On 
transactions  at  retail  three  pence  to  the  shilling  was  the  limit  except  “when 
bought  from  ships  or  other  vessells  here”  in  which  instance  “not  above 
three  obulus  in  the  shilling  by  retale,  nor  above  a peny  in  the  shilling  by 
wholesaile”  was  permitted.2  Although  this  order  did  not  prohibit  ship- 
board purchases  it  is  evident  that  Turner  had  not  forgotten  the  futile  at- 
tempt to  stamp  out  forestalling  which  had  been  assigned  to  him  when  in 
Massachusetts. 

All  of  these  regulations  of  wages,  prices  and  profits  were  repealed  by 

course  to  be  taken  by  the  governor  and  assistants,  for  the  rating  of  prizes  throughout 
the  country,  and  all  to  be  confirmed,  if  need  be,  by  the  general  court.  1 Coll.  Mass. 
Hist.  Soc.,  V.  180. 

An  order  that  dealt  with  wages,  prices  and  oppression  was  adopted  at  Hartford 
in  1639.  That  order  was  less  comprehensive  than  the  New  Haven  enactment.  “Hart- 
ford Town  Votes  1635— 1716,”  Coll.  Conn.  Hist.  Soc.,  vi.  27—28,  82. 

9 The  eight  original  divisions  of  land  (now  bounded  by  York,  Grove,  State  and 
George  streets)  that  surrounded  New  Haven’s  Market  Place  would  call  for  nearly 
a thousand  rods  of  fencing. 

1 Records  of  the  Colony  and  Plantation  of  New  Haven,  37. 

2 Id.,  35. 


1947]  Extortion  in  Colonial  New  Haven  7 1 

the  General  Court  in  1642, 3 and  so  far  as  the  records  show,  when  Turner 
laid  the  charge  of  extortion  against  an  elderly  New  Haven  shopkeeper  in 
1645,  110  statute  expressly  mentioning  extortion  or  oppression  was  in 
force.  Had  the  defendant  in  the  case  so  pleaded,  the  New  Haven  Court 
might  have  quoted  the  Mosaic  ordinances  which,  being  dictated  by  God, 
were  of  fundamental  authority.  That  these  ordinances  were  so  regarded 
was  clearly  stated  by  the  General  Court  for  the  Jurisdiction  at  New  Ha- 
ven in  1644  when  it  was  “ordered  thatt  the  judiciall  lawes  of  God,  as 
they  were  delivered  by  Moses,  and  as  they  are  a fence  to  the  morrall  law 
. . . shall  ...  be  a rule  to  all  the  courts  in  this  jurisdiction  in  their  pro- 
ceeding against  offendors.  . . .”4  No  one  familiar  with  the  Mosaic  code 
and  the  early  New  England  courts  will  doubt  that  extortion  would  be 
treated  by  any  of  those  courts  as  a breach  of  the  moral  law.5 

It  was  in  such  conditions  that  Turner  brought  his  complaint  against 
Mrs.  Stolion. 

Having  made  Turner’s  acquaintance  we  will  introduce  his  adversary. 

IV 

Jane  Stolion  was  the  daughter  of  William  Edwards,  a yeoman  of  May- 
field  in  Sussex,  England.  Her  husband,  dead  long  before  she  emigrated 
to  America,  was  Thomas  Stolion  of  Buckstye.6  About  the  year  1640  Mrs. 
Stolion  arrived  in  New  Haven  with  her  son  Abraham,  leaving  another 
son  and  a daughter  in  London;  and  having  rented  a house  on  Chapel 
Street  began  business  there.  Mrs.  Stolion,  like  Captain  Turner,  her  an- 
tagonist, possessed  considerable  means.7  Her  trading  was  on  a larger  scale 

3 Id.,  6 1 . 

4 Id.,  130. 

5 Extortion  was,  however,  forbidden  by  law  not  long-  after.  In  the  New  Haven  Code 
of  1655  a paragraph  headed  “Oppression”  reads: 

“To  prevent,  or  suppress  much  sin  against  God,  and  much  damage  to  men,  which 
doth,  and  may  growr  by  such  as  take  liberty  to  oppress,  and  wrong  others,  by  taking 
excessive  wages  for  work,  or  unreasonable  prises  for  commodities:  It  is  Ordered, 
That  if  any  shal  offend  in  either  of  the  said  cases,  upon  complaint  and  proof,  every 
such  person  shal  be  punished  by  Fine,  or  imprisonment,  according  to  the  quality  and 
measure  of  the  offence,  as  the  Court  shal  judge  meet.”  New-H averts  Settling  in 
New- Engl  and.  And  Some  Lawes  for  Government  . . . (London,  1656). 

6 John  Comber,  Sussex  Genealogies , Ardingly  Centre  (Cambridge,  1932),  191. 

7 In  1659,  “Mrs.  and  Mr.  Stolion’s  estate”  was  a creditor  of  Stephen  Goodyear’s 
estate  in  the  sum  of  £478-08-01.  Records  of  the  Colony  or  Jurisdiction  of  New  Ha- 
ven (Hartford,  1858),  306.  Mrs.  Stolion  had  property,  real  and  personal,  in  Eng- 
land, as  her  will,  signed  9 April  1640,  shows.  The  American  Genealogist , xvi.  138- 
140.  In  fairness  to  the  widow’s  reputation  it  should  be  said  that  on  the  death  of  her 
husband,  which  occurred  several  years  before  her  emigration,  she  “medled  not  with 


72  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

than  that  of  a dame’s  penny  shop.  The  charges  against  her  in  the  extor- 
tion case  show  that  she  was  avaricious  in  her  dealings.  She  was  not  a 
member  of  the  New  Haven  church.  An  inkling  of  her  character  may  be 
gathered  from  the  New  Haven  court  records.  On  one  occasion  Mrs. 
Stolion  was  granted  an  order  against  a slanderer.  At  another  time  arbi- 
trators were  called  to  settle  her  difference  with  “Mr.  Eliz.  Goodman.” 
In  1644  an  order  was  issued  for  payment  of  a debt  due  her.  In  1646  a 
special  order  rated  her  for  taxes.8  Even  more  illuminating  than  these 
sidelights  on  Mrs.  Stolion’s  affairs  are  the  charges  produced  in  her  quarrel 
with  Turner. 

The  Stolion  case  arose  from  a matter  of  little  moment.  The  difference 
between  the  widow  and  Captain  Turner  was  in  itself  a trifling  affair.  Mr. 
Stolion  had  some  cloth  which  Turner  agreed  to  buy.  Barter  being  usual, 
the  Captain  offered  in  exchange,  a cow.  The  bargain  was  practically  com- 
pleted when,  for  reasons  which  will  appear,  the  Captain  welshed.  He  not 
only  welshed,  but  with  a prudence  dictated  by  the  circumstances,  he  dis- 
patched his  servant  with  an  oral  message  to  the  widow. 

Captain  Turner  has  been  called  “New  Haven’s  Miles  Standish”  and 
there  is  more  than  one  parallel.  Longfellow  has  recited  in  familiar  verse 
the  Plymouth  captain’s  faintheartedness  before  a pretty  maiden.  Turner, 
who  like  Standish  feared  no  foe  so  long  as  the  foe  was  an  Indian,  was 
afraid  to  face  the  visage  of  an  angry  shopkeeper. 

It  is  said  that  a woman  always  has  her  weapon  ready.  Mrs.  Stolion’s 
weapon  was  her  tongue.  She  had  a double  grievance.  Turner’s  decision 
to  repudiate  their  deal  affected  her  purse.  The  captain’s  failure  to  justify 
his  action  in  person  silenced  her  affaratus  belli. 

But  if  the  widow  was  thus  debarred  from  the  exercise  of  her  tongue 
before  Turner  himself,  the  story  was  told  to  her  customers  who  quickly 
retailed  it  about  town.  In  a small  community  gossip  flourishes,  and  it  may 
be  imagined  that  New  Haven’s  market  place  with  its  grisly  decoration  of 
a murderous  Indian’s  head  buzzed  with  feminine  excitement.  For  Turner 
all  this  talk  meant  loss  of  face  and  to  the  military  leader  of  the  colony  loss 
of  face  was  unbearable.9 

any  part  of  his  estate,  further  than  her  owne  joynture  extended.”  These  matters  are 
detailed  in  a letter  from  Theophilus  Eaton  to  John  Winthrop,  30  October  1648. 
4 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.y  vi.  350—353. 

8 Records  of  the  Colony  and  Plantation  of  New  Haven , 56,  80,  147,  186,  199. 

9 Turner  lived  on  Church  Street  between  Elm  and  Wall  Streets.  Mrs.  Stolion’s  shop 
was  on  the  southerly  side  of  Chapel  Street  at  or  near  the  High  Street  intersection. 
Within  the  central  area  of  New  Haven  at  this  time  there  are  said  to  have  been  some 
100  families. 


1947]  Extortion  in  Colonial  New  Haven  7 3 

The  desire  to  retaliate  injuries  to  oneself  is  not  an  amiable  trait  but  it 
is  pretty  firmly  planted  in  human  nature.  Turner  had  not  attained  the 
virtue  of  disregarding  aspersions.  Moreover,  the  temptation  to  revenge 
himself  on  the  widow  was  strengthened  by  the  present  opportunity.  Many 
of  his  neighbors  had  suffered  from  Mrs.  Stolion’s  exorbitant  prices  and 
were  willing  to  give  their  testimony  of  her  exactions.  Determined  on  re- 
prisal, the  injured  captain  therefore  collected  evidence  of  the  widow’s  op- 
pressive dealings  with  her  customers,  and  thus  armed,  laid  his  complaint 
before  a friendly  court.  From  this  point  the  record  will  take  over.  The 
entry,  of  dated  3 December  1645,  reads: 

Captayne  Turner  informed  the  court  that  Mrs.  Stolion  hath  complayned  to 
sundry  persons  that  he  made  a bargaine  with  her  for  cloth  for  which  shee  ac- 
cepted cowes;  but  was  disapoynted  to  her  great  damadge,  & therfore  he  desired 
she  might  shew  what  cause  he  had  given  her  soe  to  doe.1 

Mrs  Stolion  pleaded  that  the  captayne  came  to  her  howse  to  buy  some  cloth, 
chose  a peece  of  20s  a yard,  and  said  he  would  have  sixe  yards  of  it,  and  Mrs. 
Stolion  should  have  a cow,  and  both  aggreed  to  have  her  prized  by  some  in- 
different men;  the  captayne  said  alsoe  that  he  had  neede  of  more  cloth  & com- 
modities to  the  vallew  of  1 21  & told  her  she  should  have  2 cowes,  and  she  said 
when  her  son  came  home  he  should  come  & chuse  them;  accordingly  when  her 
son  came  home  he  went  to  the  captayne,  chose  2 cowes,  and  when  he  came 
home  he  tould  her  the  captayne  would  come  the  next  day  & speake  with  her, 
but  came  not  according  to  his  promise,  and  though  she  sent  to  him  yet  he  came 
not. 

The  captayne  said  he  did  really  intend  to  have  had  some  cloth  and  that  she 
should  have  a cowe,  and  when  Mr.  Stolion  came  to  chuse  one  of  the  best  cowes 
he  had,  and  Mr.  Stollion  told  him  he  might  as  well  let  his  mother  have  2 cowes, 
for  she  had  neede  of  cowes  and  the  captayne  had  need  of  cloth  and  commodities, 
whereuppon  the  captayne  let  him  chuse  another  cow  & set  him  a prise,  namely, 
121.  Mr.  Stolion  said  he  would  give  but  io1,  the  captayne  told  him  he  would 
abate  10s.  Mr.  Stolion  said  he  would  give  noe  more  but  io1,  they  parted  and 
the  captayne  promised  he  would  come  and  speake  with  his  mother,  but  because 
he  could  not  well  goe  to  Mrs.  Stolion,  & haveing  heard  of  the  dearnes  of  her 
commodities,  the  excessive  gaynes  she  tooke,  was  discouradged  from  proceedinge, 
& accordingly  bid  his  man  tel  her  he  would  have  none  of  her  cloth,  and  name- 
ing  sundry  perticuler  instances  of  commodities  sold  by  her  at  an  excessive  rate, 
left  it  to  the  consideracion  of  the  court  whether  she  had  not  done  him  wronge 

1 Although  no  law  concerning  sales  contracts  existed,  either  in  New  Haven  or  Mas- 
sachusetts, it  seems  probable  that  a formal  complaint  by  the  widow  would  have  re- 
ceived favorable  attention  by  the  court.  In  the  Bay  Colony  records  (1.  309),  there 
is  this  entry  29  October  1640,  “Attachment  was  granted  to  Thomas  Fowle  against 
Thomas  Owen,  to  attach  such  goods  as  are  in  his  possession,  for  performance  of  his 
bargaine  of  corne.” 


74  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

in  complaining  of  him,  and  if  she  might  not  be  dealt  with  as  an  oppressor  of 
the  commonweale. 

The  court  conceyved  the  captayne  was  to  blame  that  he  did  not  goe  to  her 
according  to  his  promisse,  espetially  that  after  he  heard  she  was  unsatisfied  he 
did  not  attend  her  satisfaction,  but  withall  that  the  captayne  might  justly  offer 
it  to  the  consideration  of  the  court  whether  such  selleinge  be  not  extortion,  and 
not  to  be  suff erred  in  the  commonwealth.2 

1 The  captayne  complayned  that  she  sold  some  cloth  to  Wm  Bradly  at  20s 
per  yard  that  cost  her  about  12s,  for  which  she  received  wheate  at  3s  6d  per 
bushell,  and  sold  it  presently  to  the  baker  at  5s  per  bushell  who  received  it  of 
Wm  Bradly,  only  she  forbaring  her  monny  6 monthes. 

2 That  the  cloth  which  Leiut  Seely  bought  of  her  for  20s  per  yard  last  yeare, 
she  hath  sould  this  yeare  for  7 bushells  of  wheate  a yard,  to  be  delivered  in  her 
chamber,  which  she  confest. 

3 That  she  would  not  take  wompon  for  commodityes  at  6 a penny3  though 
it  were  the  same  she  had  paid  to  others  at  6,  but  she  would  have  7 a penny,  as 
Thomas  Robinson  testified. 

4 That  she  sold  primmers  at  9d  apeece  which  cost  but  4d  here  in  New  Eng- 
land. Thomas  Robinson  testified  that  his  wife  gave  her  8d  in  wompom  at  7 a 
penny,  though  she  had  but  newly  received  the  same  wompom  of  Mrs.  Stolion 
at  6. 4 

5 That  she  would  not  take  beaver  which  was  merchantable  with  others  at 
8s  a pownd,  but  she  said  she  would  have  it  at  7s  and  well  dryed  in  the  sun  or  in 
an  oven.  Leiut.  Seely,  the  marshall  & Isaacke  Mould  testified  it.  'John  Delling- 
ham  by  that  meanes  lost  5s  in  a skinne  (that  cost  him  20s  of  Mr.  Evance  and 
sold  to  her,)  vizd  2s  6d  in  the  waight  and  2s  6d  in  the  price. 

6 She  sold  a peece  of  cloth  to  the  2 Mecars  at  23s  4d  per  yard  in  wompom, 
the  cloth  cost  her  about  1 2s  per  yard  & sold  when  wompom  was  in  great  request. 

7 That  she  sold  a yard  of  the  same  cloth  to  a man  of  Connecticott  at  22s  per 
yard,  to  be  delivered  in  Indian  corne  at  2s  per  bushell  at  home. 

8 She  sold  English  mohejre  at  6s  per  yard  in  silver,  which  Mr.  Goodyeare 
and  Mt.  Atwater  affirmed  might  be  bought  in  England  for  3s  2d  per  yard  at 
the  utmost. 

9 She  sold  thridd  after  the  rate  of  12s  per  pownd  which  cost  not  above 
2s  2d  in  old  England. 

10  That  she  sold  needles  at  one  a penny  which  might  be  bought  in  old  Eng- 
land at  1 2d  or  i8d  per  hundred,  as  Mr.  Francis  Newman  affirmeth.5 

2 Only  eight  months  before  Captain  Turner  had  himself  been  a defendant  (with 
two  others)  in  a charge  of  “extortion  or  sinfull  unrighteousness  in  the  prices  of 
leather.”  The  complainant  failed,  howrever,  to  make  good  his  charge.  Records  of  the 
Colony  and  Plantation  of  New  Haven , 1.  161,  163. 

3 The  rate  fixed  by  the  General  Court  at  New  Haven,  23,  8mo.,  1640. 

4 Wampum,  of  inferior  quality,  currently  passed  at  a reduced  rate. 

5 Records  of  the  Colony  and  Plantation  of  New  Haven}  1 74—176. 


1947]  Extortion  in  Colonial  New  Haven  75 

With  this  presentment  of  Mrs.  Stolion’s  alleged  extortions  Turner 
rested.  He  was,  perhaps,  content  that  in  a measure  attention  had  been 
diverted  from  himself.  After  all,  the  broken  agreement  concerned  only 
two  persons.  The  effects  of  the  widow’s  extortions,  however,  were  felt 
in  every  house  in  the  town.  Again  the  record. 

The  Court  seriously  weighing  all  the  perticulers  chardgcd  agaynst  Mrs.  Stolion, 
conceived  that  the  nature  and  aggravations  of  the  aforesaid  chardges  was  proper 
for  a court  of  magistrates  to  consider  off,  and  therefore  respited  and  reff erred  it 
to  the  Court  of  magistrates  to  be  held  at  Newhaven  the  last  Munday  in  March 
next.6 

In  the  latter  part  of  February  following  this  decision  the  General  Court, 
or  town  meeting,  levied  a tax  on  the  three  shopkeepers  of  New  Haven, 
Mrs.  Stolion  being  one  of  them.  Besides  the  ostensible  reason  for  the  order 
there  were  probably  others.  Popular  resentment  against  extortion  was 
doubtless  one.  The  repeated  distress  call  of  the  town  treasurer,  whose 
funds  were  exhausted,  was  another.  The  record  supplies  a third: 

For  that  some  of  considerable  estates  & tradeing  doe  live  in  the  towne  & have 
hitherto  injoyed  comfortable  fruite  of  civill  administrations  & chardges,  them- 
selves in  the  meane  time  haveing  small  or  noe  rates,  it  is  ordered  that  hence 
forward  all  such  shalbe  rated  from  time  to  time  as  this  court  shall  judge  meete. 
And  for  the  present  Mrs.  Stolion  is  ordred  to  pay  after  the  rate  of  20s  a yeare 
to  the  treasurer,  Mr.  Godfrey  20s  a yeare  [etc].7 

Nothing  more  of  the  Stolion  case  is  known  as  the  records  of  the  New 
Haven  Jurisdictional  Courts  (which  would  include  the  Magistrates’ 
Courts)  for  a period  that  would  cover  March,  1646,  are  lost.8  If  a sub- 
stantial fine  was  imposed  on  Mrs.  Stolion  the  result  may  have  affected  her 
health.  Death  was  at  hand.  On  25  May  the  session  of  the  General  Court 
was  interrupted  by  a message  for  Mrs.  Stolion’s  trustees.  It  is  recorded 
that 

Mr.  Goodyeare  & Mr.  Robert  Newman  being  desired  to  goe  to  Mrs.  Stollion 
who  lyeth  very  weake  & thought  her  change  draweth  nigh,  they  had  leave  to 
depart  the  court.9 

And  so  departed  Mrs.  Stolion,1  her  body  to  the  earth  of  the  neighboring 

6 Id.,  1 76.  1 Records  of  the  Colony  and  Plantation  of  New  Haven , 199. 

8 Id.,  IV.  9 Id.,  241. 

1 Records  of  the  Colony  and  Plantation  of  New  Haven,  307.  Mrs.  Stolion’s  son 
Abraham  was  not  with  his  mother  at  her  death.  Having  been  sent  to  England  on  her 
affairs  in  1645  be  did  not  return  until  late  in  the  year  1646.  His  conduct  as  admin- 


7 6 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

Green;  her  soul  to  await  the  Judgment  of  the  Great  Assize.  Turner’s 
death  also  occurred  about  the  same  time.  The  circumstances  that  led  to 
his  untimely  end  are  these. 

The  colony — to  use  that  common  but  inaccurate  designation  of  the 
New  Haven  settlement — auspiciously  founded  by  men  of  wealth,  had  not 
prospered  as  was  expected.  Its  capital  was  dwindling.  Currency  was  ex- 
tremely scarce.  The  trade  that  had  been  developed  with  the  West  Indies, 
Virginia,  Manhattan,  New  England  and  across  the  seas  was  insufficient 
to  supply  the  community’s  needs.  A profitable  commerce  with  England 
had  not  been  established.2  Moreover,  the  so-called  colony  had  neither 
charter  nor  patent.  The  New  Haven  settlers  had  no  title  to  their  lands 
other  than  those  secured  from  the  natives  through  the  agency  of  Captain 
Turner. 

These  being  the  conditions,  late  in  1644  it  was  voted  to  send  a repre- 
sentative to  England  for  the  purpose  of  soliciting  a patent  from  Parlia- 
ment.3 A small  vessel  was  built;  a cargo  of  wheat,  peas,  hides  and  beaver 
skins4  was  collected  for  adventure;  some  plate,  perhaps  for  conversion  in- 
to coin,  was  supplied  by  the  wealthier  men  of  the  community,  and  in  Jan- 
uary, 1646,  a month  after  Turner  parted  from  Mrs.  Stolion  in  the  town- 
house,  the  ship,  carrying  some  of  New  Haven’s  leading  men,  Turner  in- 
cluded, made  way  through  the  frozen  harbor  bound  for  London  and  a 
market.  She  was  never  seen  again.  No  word  came  from  the  men  who  in 
winter  rashly  faced  the  North  Atlantic  in  a craft  believed  by  many  to  be 
unseaworthy. 

On  Turner’s  death,  therefore,  history  is  silent,  and  the  sketch  of  his 
life  ends  here.5 

There  is,  however,  a legend  that  purports  to  show  the  manner  in  which 

istrator  of  his  mother’s  estate  was  that  of  a fair-minded  man.  4 Coll.  Mass.  Hist. 
Soc.,  vi.  350-351.  In  substance,  the  will  of  Abraham’s  brother  Thomas,  “gent,” 
administered  in  1680,  is  given  in  the  New  England  Hist.  Gen.  Reg.,  xlix.  247—248. 

2 Hubbard  makes  some  interesting  comments  on  the  New  Haven  traders  and  the  er- 
rors of  their  mercantile  policy.  A General  History  of  New  England  . . . (Cambridge, 
1815), 318  ff. 

3 Records  of  the  Colony  and  Plantation  of  New  Haven,  149. 

4 Hides  were  obtained  by  barter  from  the  West  Indies;  the  New  Haven  merchants 
obtained  beaver  from  Delaware  Bay  and  from  their  Dutch  neighbors  at  Man- 
hattan. 

5 Turner’s  estate,  rated  at  £800  in  1643,  was  appraised  in  1647  at  £457.07.03.  His 
indebtedness,  which  amounted  to  less  than  £50,  included  the  sum  of  12  shillings  due 
to  Mrs.  Stolion.  Records  of  the  Colony  and  Plantation  of  New  Haven , 91.  New  Ha- 
ven Probate  Court  Records , 1.  15.  The  respect  in  which  Turner’s  memory  was  held 
is  shown  by  incidental  references  in  the  New  Haven  Town  Records  for  1659  and 
1 663,  I.  406 ; II.  40. 


1947]  Extortion  in  Colonial  New  Haven  77 

the  New  Haven  ship  was  lost.  As  an  introduction  of  that  legend  will  ele- 
vate the  conclusion  of  the  Turner-Stolion  case  to  a region  above  the  plane 
of  petty  mundane  ethics,  the  story  is  given  below.  Relating  as  it  does  to  a 
preternatural  appearance  at  New  Haven  two  years  after  the  undescribed 
disaster  occurred,  it  is  taken  from  accounts  that  are  either  contempora- 
neous with,  or  not  too  remote  from,  the  event  that  they  commemorate. 

V 

Half  a century  after  the  appearance  of  a “phantom  ship”  in  the  sky  at 
New  Haven,  Cotton  Mather  (h.  c.  1678),  who  was  then  gathering 
material  for  his  Magnalia  Christi  Americana , asked  the  New  Haven  min- 
ister, James  Pierpont  (h.  c.  1681),  for  some  account  of  the  phenomenon. 
Pierpont’s  reply  follows. 

Reverend  and  Dear  Sir , 

In  Compliance  with  your  Desires,  I now  give  you  the  Relation  of  that  Ap- 
parition of  a Ship  in  the  Air,  which  I have  received  from  the  most  Credible, 
Judicious  and  Curious  Surviving  Observers  of  it. 

In  the  Year  1647.  [J^]  besides  much  other  Lading,  a far  more  Rich  Treas- 
ure of  Passengers,  (Five  or  Six  of  which  were  Persons  of  chief  Note  and  Worth 
in  New-Haven)  put  themselves  on  Board  a New  Ship,  built  at  Rhode-Island, 
of  about  150  Tuns;  but  so  walty,  that  the  Master,  ( Lamberton ) often  said  she 
would  prove  their  Grave.  In  the  Month  of  January,  cutting  their  way  thro’ 
much  Ice,  on  which  they  were  accompanied  with  the  Reverend  Mr.  Daven- 
port, besides  many  other  Friends,  with  many  Fears,  as  well  as  Prayers  and  Tears, 
they  set  Sail.  Mr.  Davenport  in  Prayer  with  an  observable  Emphasis  used  these 
Words,  Lord,  if  it  be  thy  pleasure  to  bury  these  our  Friends  in  the  bottom  of  the 
Seas,  they  are  thine ; save  them!  The  Spring  following  no  Tidings  of  these 
Friends  arrived  with  the  Ships  from  England : New-H averts  Heart  began  to 
fail  her:  This  put  the  Godly  People  on  much  Prayer , both  Publick  and  Pri- 
vate, That  the  Lord  would  (if  it  was  his  Pleasure ) let  them  hear  what  he  had 
done  zvith  their  dear  Friends,  and  prepare  them  with  a suitable  Submission  to 
his  Holy  Will.  In  June  next  ensuing,  a great  Thunder-storm  arose  out  of  the 
North-West’,  after  which,  (the  Hemisphere  being  serene)  about  an  Hour  be- 
fore Sun-set  a SHIP  of  like  Dimensions  with  the  aforesaid,  with  her  Canvas 
and  Colours  abroad  (tho’  the  Wind  Northernly)  appeared  in  the  Air,  coming 
up  from  our  Harbour’s  Mouth,  which  lyes  Southward  from  the  Town,  seem- 
ingly with  her  Sails  filled  under  a fresh  Gale,  holding  her  Course  North,  and 
continuing  under  Observation,  Sailing  against  the  Wind  for  the  space  of  half 
an  Hour.  Many  were  drawn  to  behold  this  great  Work  of  God;  yea,  the  very 
Children  cry’d  out,  ‘ There's  a Brave  ShipP  At  length,  crouding  up  as  far  as 
there  is  usually  Water  sufficient  for  such  a Vessel,  and  so  near  some  of  the  Spec- 
tators, as  that  they  imagined  a Man  might  hurl  a Stone  on  Board  her,  her  Main- 


78  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

top  seem’d  to  be  blown  off,  but  left  hanging  in  the  Shrouds;  then  her  Missen- 
top\  then  all  her  Masting  seemed  blown  away  by  the  Board:  quickly  after  the 
Hulk  brought  into  a Careen,  she  overset,  and  so  vanished  into  a smoaky  Cloud, 
which  in  some  time  dissipated,  leaving,  as  everywhere  else,  a clear  Air.  The  ad- 
miring Spectators  could  distinguish  the  several  Colours  of  each  Part,  the  Prin- 
cipal Rigging,  and  such  Proportions,  as  caused  not  only  the  generality  of  Per- 
sons to  say,  This  was  the  Mould  of  their  Ship , and  thus  was  her  Tragick  End\ 
but  Mr.  Davenport  also  in  publick  declared  to  this  Effect,  “ That  God  had  con - 
descended , for  the  quieting  of  their  afflicted  Spirits , this  Extraordinary  Account 
of  his  Soveraign  Disposal  of  those  for  whom  so  many  Fervent  Prayers  were  made 
continually . 

Thus  I am  Sir,  Your  Humble  Servant,  James  Pierpont.6 

It  will  be  noticed  that  Pierpont  speaks  of  the  manifestation  described  by 
him  as  being  viewed  by  “admiring  [astonished]  spectators,”  and  this  at 
a time  when  marvels  were  not  uncommon.7  His  testimony,  however, 
comes  some  years  after  the  event.  A nearly  contemporaneous  report  is 
supplied  by  John  Winthrop  in  his  Journal.  Winthrop  must  be  credited 
with  a belief  in  the  phenomenon,  being  himself  not  untouched  by  the  so- 
called  superstition  of  the  day.  His  account,  the  earliest  that  we  possess,  is 
under  date  28  June  1648.  It  reads: 

There  appeared  over  the  harbor  at  New  Haven,  in  the  evening,  the  form  of 
the  keel  of  a ship  with  three  masts,  to  which  were  suddenly  added  all  the  tack- 
ling and  sails,  and  presently  after,  upon  the  top  of  the  poop,  a man  standing 
with  one  hand  akimbo  under  his  left  side,  and  in  his  right  hand  a sword  stretched 
out  towards  the  sea.  Then  from  the  side  of  the  ship  which  was  from  the  town 
arose  a great  smoke,  which  covered  all  the  ship,  and  in  that  smoke  she  vanished 
away;  but  some  saw  her  keel  sink  into  the  water.  This  was  seen  by  many,  men 
and  women,  and  it  continued  about  a quarter  of  an  hour.8 

It  is  possible  that  Winthrop’s  account  of  the  phantom  ship  was  sup- 
plied by  Theophilus  Eaton  of  New  Haven,  with  whom  Winthrop  was  in 

6 Cotton  Mather,  Magnolia  Christi  Americana  (London,  1702),  book  1,  25-26. 

7 Savage,  in  his  Genealogical  Dictionary , speaks  of  Pierpont’s  account  of  the  phan- 
tom ship  as  “evidence  of  his  felicity  of  fancy.”  Savage’s  own  labored  opinion  of  the 
whole  matter  is  given  in  a note  to  Winthrop’s  account  in  the  latter’s  uHistory  of  New 
England ” (1853),  II.  400—401.  Hubbard  makes  no  reference  to  the  story,  nor  does 
Hutchinson.  Hutchinson  in  speaking  of  the  voyage  quotes  only  Cotton’s  phrase  that 
the  passengers  “all  went  to  heaven  by  water,  the  ship  never  being  heard  of  after  their 
sailing.”  In  1824  the  pastor  of  East  Haven  reprinted  the  Pierpont  story  in  The  East- 
Haven  Register  with  the  remark:  “It  is  a singular  affair  and  will  be  amusing  to  most 
of  the  readers.”  To  this  he  adds:  “I  insert  it  without  any  comment,  leaving  every 
reader  to  make  what  speculations  he  pleases  concerning  it.” 

8 Winthrop,  uThe  History  of  New  England ” [Journal],  11.  399-400. 


1947]  Extortion  in  Colonial  New  Haven  79 

correspondence.9  The  testimony  of  “credible,  judicious  and  curious  [care- 
ful ] surviving  observers,”  on  which  Pierpont’s  version  was  based,  may 
have  been  supplemented  by  family  tradition  for  Pierpont’s  first  wife  was 
a Davenport,  granddaughter  of  the  Reverend  John  who  died  1670. 
These  witnesses  and  their  reporters,  like  everyone  of  the  time,  accepted 
without  question  the  validity  of  the  New  Haven  manifestation  as  a divine 
revelation.  Belief  in  special  providences  was  universal. 

Today,  if  such  demonstrations  were  seriously  discussed,  the  pragmati- 
cally minded  would  regard  their  truth  as  unimportant;  the  significance 
lies  in  the  appropriateness  of  the  legend  to  the  circumstances  from  which 
it  arose.  Psychology,  however,  speaking  from  an  assured  seat  in  the  aus- 
tere company  of  the  approved  sciences,  credits  the  stories  to  “collective 
hallucination”  or  “mass  hysteria,”  the  workings  of  imagination  in  over- 
wrought minds  under  the  promptings  of  preconceived  ideas. 

Yet  until  the  tenets  of  humanism  disclose  reality  in  their  own  phantoms 
of  security  and  well-being  there  will  probably  be  those  who  look  back  on 
the  past  with  a sympathy  that  is  spiritually  akin  to  the  faith  of  the  New 
England  fathers;  back  of  the  time  when  the  turbid  flood  of  modern  life 
swept  over  the  New  England  wilderness;  back  to  the  day  when  Daven- 
port’s little  company  standing  on  the  New  Haven  shore  saw  above  the 
water  that  lapped  their  feet,  not  a mirage  to  mock  their  sight,  not  phantasy 
to  betray  their  yearning — only  the  divinely  miraculous  sign  of  the  right- 
eous, beneficent  God. 


0 Eaton  wrote  to  Winthrop  on  6 August  1646,  “I  have  received  yours  of  the  19(4) 
and  3(5)  the  later  letter  almost  a month  before  the  former  came  to  hand,  two  days 
since.  In  both  I see  your  labour  of  love,  and  that  you  are  sensible  of  our  affliction  & 
exercise  concerning  Newhaven  shipp,  of  which  we  yet  heare  no  certainty,  but  desire 
to  waite  with  due  submission  (though  the  cupp  be  very  bitter)  to  our  wise  and  good 
Father’s  providence.”  4 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  vi.  345-346. 


February  Meeting,  1948 

A STATED  Meeting  of  the  Society  was  held,  at  the  invita- 
tion of  Mr.  Samuel  Eliot  Morison,  at  the  Club  of 
L Odd  Volumes,  No.  77  Mount  Vernon  Street,  Boston,  on 
Thursday,  26  February  1948,  at  three  o’clock  in  the  afternoon, 
the  President,  Augustus  Peabody  Loring,  Jr.,  in  the  chair. 

The  records  of  the  last  Stated  Meeting  were  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

The  Recording  Secretary,  on  behalf  of  the  Corresponding  Sec- 
retary, reported  the  receipt  of  letters  from  the  Hon.  Leverett 
Saltonstall  and  the  Hon.  Robert  Fiske  Bradford  accepting 
Honorary  Membership,  and  from  Mr.  Samuel  Chamberlain, 
Mr.  Julian  Lowell  Coolidge,  Mr.  Bartlett  Harding 
Hayes,  Jr.,  Dr.  Henry  Forbush  Howe,  Mr.  Carleton 
Rubira  Richmond  and  Mr.  Sidney  Talbot  Strickland  ac- 
cepting Resident  Membership  in  the  Society. 

Mr.  Edmund  Sears  Morgan  read  a paper  entitled  “Thomas 
Hutchinson  and  the  Stamp  Act.”1 

Mr.  Samuel  Eliot  Morison  made  brief  remarks  concerning 
the  Falkland  Islands,  “rocky,  barren,  surf-rimmed,”  presently 
claimed  by  both  Great  Britain  and  the  Argentine  Republic.  Mr. 
Charles  Eliot  Goodspeed  commented  on  the  fact  that  a shrub 
which  grows  on  the  Falklands  is  called  by  the  same  name — diddle 
dees — as  a New  England  pine  shrub  which  grows  on  Cape  Cod, 
and  that  a vine  which  grows  under  these  pine  shrubs  in  New  Eng- 
land belongs  botanically  to  the  same  family  as  the  Falkland 
shrub. 

The  Editor  communicated  by  title  the  following  paper  by  Mr. 
Murray  G.  Lawson: 


1 Printed  in  The  New  England  Quarterly , xxi  (1948),  459-492. 


1948]  Routes  of  Boston’s  Trade,  1752—1765 


81 


The  Routes  of  Boston’s  Trade, 

1752-1765-' 

EVER  since  the  launching  in  1642  of  its  first  home-built  vessel, 
The  Trial,2  colonial  Boston  can  be  said  to  have  lived  and  thrived 
by  the  sea,  the  umbilical  cord  of  its  economic  prosperity.  This 
cardinal  truth  has  long  been  recognized  and  accepted  by  historians.  A 
typical  expression  of  this  view  is  that  of  a New  England  historian  who,  a 
quarter  of  a century  ago,  tersely  remarked  that  “the  importance  of  mari- 
time commerce  in  the  history  of  Boston  . . . can  hardly  be  overestimated.”3 4 
Nevertheless,  despite  this  recognition,  apparently  “no  one  has  attempted” 
to  prove  the  validity  of  this  contention  by  “a  systematic  description  of  that 
commerce.”  1 This  failure  has  long  been  ascribed  to  the  lack  of  the  “statis- 
tics and  materials”  necessary  for  such  a study.5 6  Actually,  however,  a small, 
but  rather  significant,  part  of  the  statistical  data  essential  for  a quantita- 
tive analysis  of  Boston’s  trade  in  the  pre-revolutionary  period  of  the  eight- 
eenth century  has  always  been  available  in  the  English  Public  Records 
Office,  in  the  form  of  the  Massachusetts  Naval  Office  Lists  of  Entries  and 
Clearances  for  the  ports  of  Boston  and  Salem  for  the  years  1686—1719 

[and  1752—1765.°  These  Naval  Office  Lists  which  were  prepared  by  the 
Naval  Officer,  the  Governor’s  personal  agent  for  the  enforcement  of  the 
various  Navigation  Laws,7  contain  information  as  to  the  date  of  entry  or 
clearance,  the  type,  name,  tonnage,  crew  and  armament  of  the  vessel,  the 
place  and  date  of  construction,  the  place  and  date  of  registry,  the  master’s 

1  The  data  for  this  article  was  gathered  at  the  University  of  California  where  the 
author  held  the  appointment  of  Research  Associate  in  History  during  the  summer  of 
1946. 

2  William  B.  Weeden,  Economic  and  Social  History  of  New  England , 1.  143. 

3  Samuel  E.  Morison,  “The  Commerce  of  Boston  on  the  Eve  of  the  Revolution,” 
Proc.  Am.  Antiq.  Soc.}  xxxn.  24. 

4  Id.  Professor  Morison’s  study  is  based  on  incomplete  statistics  for  the  three  years, 
1771,  1772  and  1773. 

5  Id. 

6  Colonial  Office,  Series  5,  volumes  848  (1686— 1719),  849  (1752—1756),  850 
(1752-1765)  and  851  (1756-1765).  See  Charles  M.  Andrews,  Guide  To  The  Ma- 
terials For  American  History , To  1783 , In  The  Public  Record  Office  of  Great 
Britain , I.  1 7 1 . It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  these  Naval  Office  Lists  do  not  give  a 
complete  picture  of  Boston’s  trade,  since  the  activities  of  the  fishing  fleet  and  of  the 
vessels  participating  in  the  intra-New  England  trade  are  not  recorded. 

7  For  a description  of  the  office  of  the  Naval  Officer  see  George  L.  Beer,  The  Old 
Colonial  System , 1660—1734,  1.  267—272  and  Lawrence  A.  Harper,  The  English 
Navigation  Laws , 170—176. 


82 


The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [feb. 

and  owner’s  names,  the  cargo,  the  terminus  and  the  place,  date  and 
amount  of  bond,  if  any.  About  a decade  ago  this  material  was  first  made 
available  in  this  country  when  it  was  microfilmed  for  the  University  of 
California.8 

As  this  article  is  intended  as  a contribution  to  our  rather  meager  knowl- 
edge of  the  actual  geographical  areas  with  which  Boston  traded  in  the 
mid-eighteenth  century  only  that  portion  of  the  Massachusetts  Naval 
Office  Lists  pertaining  to  the  port  of  Boston  are  utilized.9  These  were  pre- 
pared under  the  direction  of  Benjamin  Pemberton  (1697—1782),  the 
Naval  Officer  of  Boston  since  1 7 34,1  and  cover  a span  of  roughly  four- 
teen years,  from  10  October  1752  to  9 October  1765,  inclusive.2  Of 
these,  eight  (1753,  1754,  1755.  1756,  I759>  i76i,  1762  and  1764) 
are  complete  years  of  four  quarters  each,  beginning  on  January  fifth  and 
ending  on  the  following  January  fourth,  and  six  (1752,  1757,  1758, 
1760,  1763  and  1765)  are  incomplete,  consisting  of  from  one  to  three 
quarters  each.3  Unfortunately,  as  almost  two-thirds  of  this  period  was  a 
time  of  war— as  far  as  the  English  colonies  were  concerned  the  French 
and  Indian  Wars  may  be  said  to  have  begun  with  the  failure  of  Wash- 
ington’s mission  to  the  French  in  the  summer  of  1754  and  to  have  ended 
with  the  capture  of  Havana  in  August  of  1762— a certain  amount  of  di- 
vergence from  normalcy  can  be  expected  for  these  war  years.  How  large, 
or  small,  this  distortion  actually  is  may  be  easily  gauged  from  a compari- 
son with  the  normal  years  both  preceding  and  succeeding  the  period  of 
the  wars. 

Before  proceeding  to  an  explanation  of  the  charts,  which  appear  below, 
it  might  be  advisable  to  sketch  briefly  the  imperial  and  colonial  laws  af- 


8 This  microfilming  project,  consisting  of  copying  all  the  extant  Naval  Office  Lists 
of  the  English,  American  and  Caribbean  colonies,  was  undertaken  by  Professor  Law- 
rence A.  Harper  of  the  Department  of  History.  During  the  late  war  the  Metcalf 
Committee  on  Micro-copying  Manuscripts  in  English  Depositories  copied  all  of  the 
Colonial  Office  Series  5 and  deposited  the  film  in  the  Library  of  Congress.  For  further 
information  regarding  this  latter  project  see  Vernon  D.  Tate,  “From  Binkley  To 
Bush,”  The  American  Archivist , x.  253. 

9 It  is  the  intention  of  the  author  to  prepare  a similar  study  for  the  port  of  Salem. 

1 For  further  biographical  details  see  Walter  K.  Watkins,  “The  Pemberton  Family,” 
New  England  Hist.  Gen.  Reg.,  xlvi.  396. 

2 Actually  the  extant  portion  of  the  Naval  Office  List  for  the  year  1752  begins  with 
29  September.  However,  for  the  sake  of  uniformity  and  comparability  the  entries 
and  clearances  for  the  eleven  days  from  29  September  to  9 October  inclusive  have 
been  excluded. 

3 The  inclusive  dates  of  the  four  quarters  are  (1)  5 January  — 4 April,  (2)  5 April 
— 4 July,  (3)  5 July  — 9 October  and  (4)  10  October  — 4 January. 


1948]  Routes  of  Boston’s  Trade,  1752-1765  83 

fecting  the  course  of  Boston’s  trade  in  the  period  under  discussion.  The 
imperial  framework  “regulating  the  trade  of  the  colonies  in  . . . America 
dealt  chiefly”  with  three  objects,  “(1)  the  ships  carrying  the  goods,  (2) 
the  places  to  which  colonial  goods  might  be  exported,  and  (3)  the  places 
from  which  goods  might  be  imported.”4  By  the  Navigation  Act  of  1660 
only  English  shipping,  that  is  shipping  owned  by  the  people  of  England, 
Wales,  Scotland  (after  1707),  Ireland,  the  Channel  Islands  and  the 
English  colonies,  was  permitted  to  trade  with  the  colonies.5  By  the  same 
act  “colonial  produce  might  be  exported  from  the  colonies  freely,  except 
enumerated  articles  which  had  to  be  sent  to  England  or  an  English 
colony.”  (After  1685  Ireland  was  no  longer  deemed  “English”  and  Scot- 
land didn’t  become  so  until  1707.)°  The  regulations  governing  imports 
are  much  more  complex  and  vary  with  the  continent  from  which  they 
came.  African  products,  although  subject  to  the  monopoly  of  the  Royal 
African  Company,  could  otherwise  be  imported  freely.  East  Indian  goods, 
beginning  in  1698,  had  to  be  obtained  from  England.7  “The  importa- 
tion of  European  goods  . . . was  governed  by  the  Staple  Act  of  1663  . . . 
which  required  that  such  goods  be  obtained  in  England  . . . with  certain 
exceptions  . . .”  such  as  servants,  horses  and  victuals  from  Scotland  and 
Ireland,  wines  from  the  Azores  and  Madeira  and  salt  from  Europe  for 
the  fisheries.  (Until  1707  and  1780  Scotland  and  Ireland,  respectively, 
were  regarded  as  foreign  countries  which  could  export  to  the  colonies  only 
when  specific  permission  was  granted.)8  American  products,  with  a few 
exceptions,  could  be  imported  without  hindrance,  although  occasionally 
subject  to  an  import  duty,  which  might  or  might  not  be  prohibitive  in  na- 
ture. From  1735  to  1758,  however,  foreign  coffee  was  required  to  be  im- 
ported from  England  and  in  1764  the  importation  of  foreign  rum  and 
spirits  was  prohibited.9 

4 Lawrence  A.  Harper,  The  English  Navigation  Laws,  394—395. 

5 389,  395- 

6 Id.,  396—399.  The  chief  enumerated  articles  which  affected  the  trade  of  the  Ameri- 
can colonies  are: 

1661:  cotton  wool,  dyewoods,  fustic,  ginger,  indigo,  logwood,  sugar  (white 
and  brown)  and  tobacco. 

1705:  molasses  and  rice. 

1706:  naval  stores. 

1722:  beaver  skins  and  furs  and  copper  ore. 

1764:  cocoa  nuts,  coffee,  hides  and  skins,  iron,  lumber,  pimento,  pot  and 
pearlashes,  raw  silk  and  whale  fins. 

7 Id.,  400. 

8 Id.,  401. 

9 Id.,  402—403. 


84  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [feb. 

During  the  course  of  the  French  and  Indian  Wars  special  measures 
were  resorted  to  which  tended  to  interfere  with  the  normal  course  of 
trade  and  commerce.  In  the  period  preceding  the  official  declaration  of 
war  in  May,  1756,  both  the  imperial  and  colonial  governments  took  steps 
to  prevent  the  French  colonies  in  America  from  being  supplied  with  pro- 
visions and  warlike  stores.  As  early  as  November,  1754,  instructions  to 
this  effect  were  despatched  to  both  the  naval  and  military  commanders  in 
America.1  In  March,  1755,  Massachusetts,  realizing  the  extreme  gravity 
of  the  situation,  adopted  the  first  of  eight  laws  for  the  “prevention  of  sup- 
plies of  provisions  and  warlike  stores  to  the  French.”2  In  May,  1756, 
England  declared  war  on  France  and  as  it  was  a “clearly  defined  and 
unequivocal  principle  of  British  law,  [that]  all  commercial  intercourse 
with  the  enemy  was  absolutely  prohibited  in  time  of  war,”3  such  trade 
with  the  French  was  immediately  proscribed,  as  it  was  later  with  the  Span- 
ish when  England  declared  war  on  Spain  in  January,  1762.  Despite  this 
“prohibition  of  all  direct  trade  with  the  French,”  the  British  blockade  of 
the  French  West  Indies  proved  to  be  ineffective  as  “provisions  could  still 
be  legally  shipped  . . . from  the  American  colonies  to  the  islands  of  the 
neutral  powers  in  the  West  Indies,  whence  they  could  be  transported  to 
the  French  colonies.”4  Consequently,  in  1757  Parliament  attempted  to 
close  this  gap  by  “prohibiting  . . . the  exportation  of  all  provisions  (except 
fish  and  roots,  and  rice  . . .)  from  the  colonies  to  any  place  but  Great 
Britain,  Ireland,  or  some  British  colony.”5  In  addition,  occasionally  the 
military  situation  in  America  necessitated  the  temporary  imposition  of  a 
general  embargo  on  all  trade.  In  1757  Loudon  laid  such  an  embargo  for  a 
few  months  in  order  to  obtain  sufficient  transports  to  move  his  troops  to 
Halifax;  in  1758  Abercromby  imposed  a similar  embargo  preparatory 
to  the  Louisbourg  expedition;  and  finally,  in  1762  Amherst  embargoed 

1 George  L.  Beer,  British  Colonial  Policy , 1754— 1765,  76. 

2 Session  1 754—1 755,  c.34 5 session  175 5—1 756,  c.6,  7,  1 1,  16,  20,  30 ; session  1756- 
1757,  c.15.  Massachusetts  (Colony),  The  Acts  and  Resolves  . . . of  the  Province  of 
the  Massachusetts  Bay  . . . , III,  814,  865,  866—867,  870—871,  880—881,  884—885, 
901—903,  998.  In  1757  and  again  in  1758,  as  a contribution  to  the  military  effort, 
Massachusetts  placed  a temporary  “embargo  upon  [the]  ships  and  other  vessels  in 
this  province.”  Session  1756-1757,  c.35  (7—20  April  1757)  and  session  1757-1758, 
c.25  (25  March  — 1 June  1758).  III.  1046;  iv,  70—71. 

3 George  L.  Beer,  British  Colonial  Policy , 7754-/7(55,  72. 

* Id.y  79. 

5 Id.,  84.  The  “Rule  of  1756,”  that  is  the  ruling  of  the  British  prize  courts  that  a 
neutral  power  could  not  engage  in  a trade  which  was  opened  to  it  only  by  “the 
pressure  of  war,”  to  some  extent  hampered  the  trade  of  the  English  colonies  with  the 
Dutch  and  Spanish  in  the  Caribbean.  Id.,  94-96. 


1948]  Routes  of  Boston’s  Trade,  1752-1765  85 

the  export  of  provisions  from  the  Northern  and  Middle  colonies  in  order 
to  maintain  a sufficient  store  of  supplies  for  the  provisioning  of  his  troops.6 

As  can  readily  be  seen  from  the  titles  of  the  four  statistical  tables,  which 
form  the  heart  of  this  article,  they  represent  an  attempt  to  fill  in  one  of 
the  many  lacunae  in  our  knowledge  of  colonial  trade  and  commerce  by 
presenting  a quantitative  analysis  of  the  course  of  Boston’s  trade  in  the 
middle  period  of  the  eighteenth  century.  The  format  adopted  is  that  of  pro- 
ceeding from  the  general  to  the  particular.  Consequently,  the  first  table 
presents  a breakdown  of  Boston’s  trade  in  the  years  1752—1765  with  the 
major  geographical  regions  of  the  world,  North  America,  the  Caribbean, 
the  British  Isles,  Europe  and  Africa.  The  second  shows  a further  break- 
down by  sub-dividing  each  of  these  major  regions  into  their  component 
geographical  sub-regions.  The  third  offers  an  even  more  elaborate  break- 
down by  listing,  in  alphabetical  order,  the  specific  ports  with  which  Bos- 
ton traded.  The  fourth  gives  a list  of  those  voyages  which  had  more  than 
a single  terminus.  In  this  connection  it  should  be  noted  that  for  the  pur- 
poses of  calculation  these  multiple  termini  voyages  were  counted  twice 
(in  one  instance  three  times),  once  for  each  terminus. 


6 Id.,  85,  1 1 2-1 13. 


Tables 


The  Routes  of  Boston’s  Trade, 
J7  5 2—I7  65 


TABLE  I 

The  Termini  of  Boston’s  Trade,  by  Major  Geographical  Areas,  1752-1765 


in 

to  o 

r-f  C3 


'FrO 
60  o 
»pQ 
1— ( c3 


CO 

60  T3 
b-  o 

pH  C3 


(MtJ 
to  o 
1>.£! 
1— 1 m 


1— ( r^j 

<0  O 
b-XJ 

iH  CS 


00 

CM 

O rH  ^ 

rH 

60 

rH 

m 

O pH 

C0 

co 

rH 

.-f  in 

0 

60 

^ rH 

C0 

00 

os 

rH 

co 

os 

in 

Oi 

CM 

CM 

CO 

H 

C0 

co 

pH 

O 

60 

Tf 

xf  Oi 

CO 

O 

b- 

n in  01 

00 

0 

co 

rH 

OS  00 

Hf 

CM 

in 

rH 

Tf 

rH 

Os 

in  pH 

00 

in 

CM 

rH 

CM  pH 

cm 

pH 

Hf 

cm 

CO 

"F 

CM 

rH 

00 

00 

CM 

0 

Os 

Os 

O 

H 

Os 

CM 

iH 

J> 

00 

CO 

Os 

rH 

1 

• 

0 

CM 

C0 

rH 

00 

00 

iH 

"F 

in 

Os 

CO 

1> 

pH 

rH 

< 

ng 

CM 

pH 

CO 

rH 

iH 

CO 

co 

CM 

) 

v 

CM 

CM 

'F 

<0 

in 

OS 

CM 

in 

m 

co 

CM 

”6* 

l> 

Os 

co 

00 

1 

A 

K 

iH 

co 

"F 

rH 

0 

60 

CM 

CO 

CO 

»n 

1> 

CM 

CO 

pH 

in 

CM 

pH 

•F1 

in 

CM 

( 

'& 

V 

in 

CM 

O 

co 

F1 

TP 

in 

in 

Os 

m 

CO 

CM 

O 

1> 

Os 

00 

<N 

<1 

A 

m 

iH 

CO 

rH 

rH 

co 

OS 

CO 

pH 

Os 

Os 

0 

60 

CM 

rH 

< 

cu 

CM 

pH 

■F 

CM 

CO 

■6* 

CM 

( 

o 

60^3 

b-  os 


7 

5 
9 

6 

rH 

in 

Tf  rH  Tf 

• 

Os 

rH 

CO  O 

0 

60 

OS 

OS 

CO  *"H 

• 

OS 

0 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

• 

rH 

pH 

rH 

</) 

W 

O 

C 

O 

> 


Os  T3 
10  o 
t--S 

pH  CS 


00 

10^3 
1>.0 
i—t  o3 


t> 

10  o 

pH  eg 


w 

PQ 


§ 


p 

5 


to^ 
in  o 

J>pO 
pH  Ctf 


lO  rQ 

m o 
b-pQ 
pH 


CM 

»n 

Oi 

00 

in 

Os 

CM 

00 

Os 

b* 

CO 

OS 

CM 

c 

rH 

m 

co 

m 

pH 

0 

»n 

pH 

pH 

c 

CM 

pH 

rH 

CM 

"'F 

rH 

b 

CO 

OS 

O 

CM 

CM 

CM 

rH 

60 

O 

Os 

CO 

Os 

’’F 

60 

pH 

in 

r 

Os 

OS 

rH 

H 

CM 

H 

CM 

00 

co 

rH 

CO 

CM 

r 

iH 

CO 

rH 

pH 

C0 

rH 

t- 

iH 

Oi 

00 

CO 

00 

O 

CO 

OS 

• 

CO 

60 

CO 

CM 

co 

«! 

60 

OS 

rH 

pH 

Os 

O 

CM 

CM 

rH 

• 

1> 

rH 

CO 

t 

pH 

CM 

rH 

• 

pH 

CM 

rH 

T 

CM 

Os 

rH 

OS 

pH 

CM 

rH 

00 

m 

CM 

co 

CO 

Os 

^F 

m 

pH 

CO 

CO 

CM 

rH 

O 

CO 

CO 

00 

00 

60 

60 

c 

CM 

pH 

T? 

rH 

CM 

CO 

rH 

6C 

rF 

00  IH 

0 

"F 

to  >-H 

00 

pH 

b- 

rH 

^F  cm 

it 

O 

CO 

CO 

CM 

O 

t>* 

m 

CO 

CM 

00 

00 

00 

»n 

c 

CM 

pH 

rH 

CM 

co 

pH 

6C 

^pO 
»n  o 
t-jo 

pH  C3 


TF 

in 

rH 

60  60 

CM 

O 

0 

in 

1> 

O 

CM 

TF 

in 

60 

CO 

60 

T 

CO 

»n 

OO 

CM 

in 

»n 

00 

''F 

CM 

rH 

rH 

00 

co 

»n 

rH 

6< 

CM 

pH 

'F 

rH 

CO 

CO 

CM 

b 

S'0 

in  o 

b-^3 

1— t o3 


pH 

^F 

CM 

O -F 

pH 

^F 

CM 

60 

0 rH 

Os 

»n 

60 

00 

60 

VO 

60 

in 

"'F 

CM 

00 

00 

TF 

rH  rH 

CM 

tF 

CM 

00 

co 

rH 

CM 

rH 

'F 

rH 

CO 

^F 

CM 

OS 

CM 

t>  CM  pH 

rH 

00 

<N 

CM  CM  H 

in 

^F 

9 

4 

2 

00 

in 

rH 

O 

rH 

CO 

rH 

CM 

CM 

pH 

60 

CO 

o 

Eh 

Co 

tq 

CJ 

£ 

an 

Kl 

o 


< 

u 

HH 

« 

< 


< 

H 

O 

H 


o 


o 


co 

S*3 

>H 

Eh 

£ 

f*3 


W 

§ 

w 

H 

pq 

O 

£ 


co 
W 
£ J 

< ffl 

W HH 

rn  H2 

S ffl 

53  & 

< pq 

U pq 


W 

PU 

O 

pq 

P 

w 


o 

HH 

PH 

E 

< 


J 


o 

H 


60  — N 
«J  Cc 
tj  9J 


SIS 


023 


Eh 

o 

Eh 


<1 

u 


PH 

B 55 

3 < 

< w 

ffi  & 

h a 

pq  PH 


< 

V 


C/3 

w 

J 

C/3 

l-H 

a 

C/3 

HH 

H 

l-H 

pp 

pq 


w 

PL, 

o 

a 

a 

w 


u 


pq 


pH 


GRAND  TOT  AT. 


b> 

CO 

<N 

r-H 

o 

co 

00 

CM 

00 

o 

O 

00 

VO 

00 

o 

rH 

o 

o 

(N 

(N 

04 

CM 

pH 

CO 

O 

vo 

vo 

O 

CO 

t- 

CM 

vo 

l£ 

00 

o 

00 

OJ 

00 

CO 

1> 

VO 

» 

CO 

vo 

!> 

vo 

CM 

vo 

C a 

o 

rf 

o 

00 

VO 

Tf 

oT 

04 

04 

oT 

pH 

o 

■w" 

r-H 

CM 

pH 

rH 

4i  > 

04 

o 

CO 

t>* 

o 

04 

o 

CO 

04 

CO 

o 

00 

04 

CO 

CM 

o 

o 

t> 

T »Tl 

^ 7\ 

co 

04 

o 

co 

CO 

CM 

o> 

CO 

tH 

CO 

00 

00 

00 

Tf 

rH 

CO 

»o 

J o 

m _Q 

»o 

Tf 

CO 

04 

CO 

04 

Tf 

CM 

o 

vo 

cO 

°1 

°I 

CO 

vo 

co 

04 

H Ctf 

ci 

00 

VO 

1> 

04 

VO 

CO 

pH 

CM 

pH 

CO 

»-H 

CM 

pH 

o 

W 

pH 

CM 

CM 

CM 

pH 

rH 

vo 

/H-S 

/"V 

pH 

t> 

OJ 

vo 

o 

VO 

»o 

tH 

o 

O 

CO 

CO 

pH 

04 

VO 

o 

pH 

J 

n ptH 

04 

r-H 

CO 

Hf 

04 

pH 

co 

pH 

o 

CO 

CO 

»o 

CO 

CM 

U VJ 

>•  u 

<N 

t> 

<N 

00 

VO 

00 

vo 

VO 

rH 

& 

CM 

VO 

CO 

CO 

VO 

H Cd 

O 

00 

CO 

CO 

Ch 

vo 

00 

00 

1> 

pH 

CM 

pH 

CM 

pH 

rH 

pH 

NJ  ftH 

CO 

00 

<N 

CO 

o 

CO 

04 

vo 

CM 

00 

o 

CM 

CO 

pH 

o 

o 

* H U 

o o 

Tf 

40 

CO 

pH 

<N 

04 

CM 

04 

vo 

CM 

C0 

CO 

l> 

vo 

rH 

vo 

CO 

-X) 

00 

co 

VO 

04 

C0 

CM 

CM 

o 

CO 

'Cf 

rH 

CM 

o 

1> 

04 

CO 

Tf 

VO 

H Cj 

co 

00 

CO 

pH 

CO 

CM 

vo 

vo 

CO 

pH 

oT 

rH 

CM 

pH 

CM 

CM 

pH 

HT) 
O O 

04 

CM 

00 

VO 

VO 

04 

»o 

CM 

04 

vo 

o 

rH 

o 

VO 

O 

VO 

00 

vo 

CO 

o 

pH 

00 

04 

r- 

CM 

CO 

CO 

VO 

vo 

>-Q 

co 

04 

CM 

CO 

CM 

pH 

CO 

04 

CO 

»o 

pH 

q 

q 

CO 

t> 

h a 

pH 

CO 

oT 

CM 

O 

»o 

rf 

rH 

pH 

CM 

pH 

co 

pH 

CM 

pH 

CM 

CM 

pH 

o 

pH 

04 

»o 

»o 

vo 

VO 

CO 

00 

vo 

o 

rH 

04 

o 

VO 

VO 

CO 

OTJ 

CO 

CO 

»o 

co 

04 

VO 

co 

vo 

VO 

»o 

C0 

04 

04 

rH 

00 

04 

00 

l>  c3 

pH 

04^ 

CO 

CM 

't 

00 

C0 

CO 

CO 

q 

CO 

00 

04 

CM 

q 

H 

rf 

O 

co 

pH 

pH 

CO 

rH 

W 

pH 

pH 

04  T3 

O 

o 

00 

O 

»o 

co 

CO 

CO 

VO 

»o 

04 

co 

CO 

rH 

CM 

VO 

VO  o 

Tf 

»o 

00 

co 

CO 

o 

CO 

CM 

04 

o 

CM 

pH 

pH 

rH 

CO 

CO 

CO 

t--g 

pH  OS 

CM 

vo 

°l 

CM 

VO 

°i. 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

o 

CM 

q 

<o 

pH 

CO 

q 

pH 

oT 

pH 

C0 

vo 

CO 

vo 

l> 

CM 

o 

pH 

00 

pH 

CM 

rH 

pH 

pH 

CO 

CO 

o 

VO 

o 

VO 

co 

o 

o 

O 

lo 

04 

CO 

o 

04 

O 

O 

CM 

uu 

1 rrH 

00 

04 

CM 

CO 

00 

pH 

o 

CM 

co 

rH 

o 

04 

04 

^p 

CM 

O 

VO 

'U 

t> 

o 

q 

CO 

o 

q 

04 

q 

vo 

rH 

q 

q 

q 

q 

q 

CM 

q 

pH  d 

00 

pH 

00 

»o 

cm" 

oT 

co 

00 

co 

pH 

w 

pH 

pH 

Ol 

1> 

co 

C0 

1> 

o 

o 

CO 

CM 

o 

vo 

• 

tP 

CO 

vo 

i> 

vo 

O 

o 

04 

00 

rH 

00 

04 

00 

co 

• 

00 

vo 

^p 

00 

CO 

n 

^ -Q 

q 

pH 

vo 

o 

pH 

04 

q 

q 

q 

q 

• 

q 

q 

q 

q 

q 

rH 

q 

rH  03 

vo 

CO 

pH 

rH 

CO 

pH 

CM 

pH 

• 

oT 

oT 

CO 

of 

TP~ 

rH 

CM 

O TJ 

oo 

pH 

00 

o 

o 

co 

pH 

t** 

VO 

o 

04 

^p 

CM 

VO 

vo 

o 

CO 

in  u 

vo 

04 

pH 

co 

o 

o 

vo 

vo 

CM 

o 

CO 

04 

vo 

4 T 

o 

q 

I> 

00 

q 

q 

q 

q 

q 

Tp 

q 

q 

q 

q 

o 

^p 

q 

pH  & 

oT 

oT 

CM 

pH 

CM 

CO 

CM 

C0 

cm" 

vo 

vo 

rH 

CO 

'cp 

00 

CM 

pH 

pH 

rH 

CO 

vo  T3 

CM 

pH 

o 

CO 

o 

CO 

CO 

pH 

»o 

co 

o 

»o 

00 

CM 

vo 

CO 

o 

pH 

vo  o 

CO 

00 

vo 

o 

vo 

pH 

CO 

CO 

CM 

CO 

o 

00 

04 

pH 

co 

VO 

o 

I^tQ 

o 

q 

00 

q 

q 

pH 

q 

pH 

q 

q 

q 

o 

q 

pH 

q 

pH  d 

00 

00 

cm" 

pH 

pH 

1> 

cm" 

CO 

pH 

^P 

vo 

O 

co 

CO 

vo 

CM 

pH 

pH 

pH 

CO 

Tji  -0 

CO 

CO 

VO 

o 

o 

Tf 

CM 

00 

VO 

00 

o 

vo 

CO 

co 

VO 

00 

TP 

VO  o 

CO 

CO 

vo 

04 

Tf1 

C0 

o 

o 

00 

» 

pH 

04 

1H 

CO 

vo 

CO 

»o 

00 

q 

00 

pH 

CM 

q 

t> 

c> 

q 

o 

CO 

q 

q 

q 

q 

q 

04 

q 

pH  C4 

o 

o 

cm" 

CM 

CO 

vo 

CM 

CO 

»o 

^p 

Tp 

pH 

pH 

CM 

pH 

pH 

pH 

^p 

CO  p^3 

CO 

VO 

CM 

00 

rH 

04 

00 

CO 

rp 

oo 

O 

CO 

pH 

00 

CO 

CO 

pH 

CM 

vo  O 

vo 

CO 

vo 

J> 

oo 

vo 

CO 

co 

CM 

-cp 

CM 

pH 

04 

00 

O 

pH 

rH 

t-pO 

q 

VO 

vo 

q 

pH 

q 

q 

q 

q 

q 

CO 

q 

q 

q 

q 

q 

00 

o 

pH  d 

pH 

o 

CO 

pH 

i> 

vo 

CO 

pH 

CO 

TP 

co 

TP 

pH 

pH 

<M 

pH 

pH 

pH 

^p 

CM 

00 

00 

o 

vo 

o 

pH 

vo 

CO 

o 

VO 

o 

CO 

CO 

'P 

O 

O 

o 

VO  pH 

CO 

pH 

CO 

04 

CO 

CO 

CO 

pH 

vo 

CO 

co 

00 

o 

rH 

04 

pH 

vo 

q 

q 

pH 

q 

q 

CO 

o 

CM 

»o 

pH 

q 

q 

rp 

q 

pH 

co 

co 

rH 

oo 

pH 

CM 

^p" 

CO 

■cp 

co 

co 

o 

h. 

co 

£ 

Kl 

•H 


< 


u 

l-H 

P$  M 

W g 

§ < 

< w 

K W 

- CQ 


H 

g « 

9 < 

X O 


H« 

c n 

w 

J 

co 

HH 

>o 

w w 

CO  Oh 


£ H 


O 

. . « 

« !□ 
« W 


<5 

u 

»— i 

pp 

< 


J 

< 

H 

O 

H 


o 

Ph 

Co 

fea 

►«N 

Os 

Eh 

£ 

f*3 


<1 

O 

l-H 

« 

w 


CO 

W 

co 


•J 

<U 

H 

O 

H 


55 

. < ~ 
w§WW  > 

W s CO  Oh 

hSro^ 

g « £ g « 

o «J  pes  £>  - 

55  O « 


D 

W <! 


«0  — N 
4}  Co 
O <4j 

§'4S 

Js  8 
§P*3 

Eh 

o 

Eh 


< 

u 

HH 

Ph 

w 


w 

H 

PS 

O 

z 


co 

W 

J 

co 

« w 

CO  Ph 


PS  D 

pq  W 


H 2 H 

■ ■ g PS 


J 

< 

h 

O 

h 

Q 

s 


o 


Ph 

< 


»o 


IfSS 

» = =J 
2 O^X 

H -u  44  „ 
e -t-> 


bn 


o> 


<u 

so 

09 


<s  ° 
>-2 
T3  *3 

?&!.§ 
> 2J  <u  >h 

PTH  5 fl  ~ 

'o  a 5 

g o Sg 

•H  <U  - 

•a  S|  | 

PP  SPP? 

H O+J  f||) 

*-  <u  'S,  8 

£-3% 


I 

rq 


c/2 

C 

O 


bo 

<L> 

Pi 

i 

p 
c n 


c5 

U 


*P 

Oh 

03 

bo 
■— ■ c 

M CJ 

w o 

>-Q  U-H 

PQ  .8 

< rc 

pu 


03 

*h 

H 


C/2 

S 

c 

o 


co 

o 

PQ 


o 

crH 

s 


ty 

<L> 

H 

0) 

-C 

H 


to 

co  o 
r-XJ 
-h  cs 


©cot^to  • b-  • os  co  co  oo  to  cq 

^ CO  -CO  -HHW 


HCt'  • Cs  O • Cq  « b*  iHl>Tj'cO> 
• >— I < (N  • CO 


rH  jH  rj<  rH 


_*CT  COtOOSCO  • b~  • O O H (O  CO 
ST?  CO  CO  rH  • C}  • CO  CN  to  i-H 


CO  O 
t~X2 
i— ( cs 


rHb«©  *Cq  to  • CO  *10 
rH  • rH  Cq  • CO  • 


HCKNifl  Cq 
1 ■'* 


-coo 


ca  • CO  00  00  C0  to 

<0-3  Cq  CO  (N  *Whioh 
b-  o 
i— i cs 


CM  to  O • CO  to  -CO 
Cq  • i— i i— ( • b» 


(01--)  CO  CO  • CO  • h co  Oh  . 

<£  O (N  CD  i-H  • to  cq  CO  cq 

b-X> 

H IS 


rH  C»  tO  • CO  rH  .00 
>— I • i— l CO  • to 


rHrfoOrH  cq  .tooo 

•CO 


y— i 03 
O O 
t-X2 
i— i cs 


to  b-  hJ  00  pH  Oi  • (N  Cs  00  O CN 
(NCNCO  CM  • h*  CO  -1 


O 

COT? 
b-  cs 


Oi  no  to  >—i  oo  i— i 

to  O H rH 

b-  XS  i— I 

I— l cS 


b»  « Tf  Os  y~y  I CO 

>— I • <N  h}> 


CD 

W 

O 

< 

o 

> 


00  00 
5-d 

*^X> 

rH  CS 


rH  b-  cq  rH  Os  cq  •'3' 

rH  cq  cq 


fan 

O 


. ^ Cq  • co  b»  *C0  • CO  00  CO  CM 

^ o >— i * oo  • cq  • >— i »h 


*^X) 
IS 


p$ 

W 


- Q> 

<L>  ^ 


<0-3  b-  • Os b-  • o cq co cq rf oo 

^ Q rH  • VO  rH  ’CO  HH^i 


t-g 

1— I CS 


Jr-—,  rf  • b-  oo  • co  cq  to  os  i— i to 

ifj  o cq  *to  *cq  h «o 


t-XJ 

cs 


r*rr 1 CO  • cq  CO  . co  r-l  to  ^ Os  to 

uo  u co  •t}'i— i • co  cq  i— i f— i 


t-X2 

cs 


co  to  co  • i— 1 1>  • os  cq  co  —i  to 

too  co  • to  i— i «co  cq  f-i  co  —i 


t-X2 

IS 


cq  >h  • b*  t?  -OHHMocq 

to  --j  * rH I • I—I  rH  CO 

b*  • 


to  to  • H to  .to 

rH  • cq  • co 


cq 

cq 


cq  b-  • 


to  cq  rH  •rj'HOOi'OtJ  • 
CO  rH  CO 


rH  CO  * OS  rH  "CO 
rH  « I— I . CO 


Tf  • rH 


cq 


iH*cq 


hJ1  rf  O CO  03  CO  • 00  rH 
cq  rH  -CO 


, tocqi 


cq  • cq  —i  .co 


rH  CO  * rH  b-  " b» 

cq  • cq 


rH  cq  rH  cq  • 


ocq 


rH  OS  rH  -rf1  Cq  • CO  rH  • 
CO  rH  • CO  • 


- to  CO  rH  » Hji  . . CO  rH 

* rH  • • • rH 


I O • O • O rH  • •C^IOCO  • Ci  *HC0O 

1 H • • rH  • • • • rH 


co  rH  os  • cq  h?  • co  • • cq  co  b*  cq  • co  • • to  co 
• rH  • O • • cq  * ..rH 


to  -H  .rfrH  • -rj<  . . . to  cq  CO  rH  O • • t»  00 

Cq  • H H "O  • * * cq  rH  * . 


CO  to  CO  . cq  . rH 

cq  . rH  -O 


CO 


CO  CO  ' 


CO 


rf<  . co  CO  . os 
rH  . • cq 


co  cq  cq 


cq 


n 


rl  ’3.  ^ W 
HIM  J2  Ch 

” « w 
w a r a»  to 


as 


h 

H 

(S  ® 
o 


•o  s — 


° 5 w hS  •o 

W3  H <C  — y 

cu  CO  ^ ">  M 

a 


6 

a 2 |§.S  g|  2^ 

“ M 8 S?£.s  3 8~  “ 


'ISSOoscSIs^-hOHiu- 


C3  c/2 

“Wc 

^CO.-2oso  Wh,10 

C l-l  b jy  rl  N >.N  ^ 

« . fl  rrt  CS  m 


Cq  rH  rH 


« 

«■ 


co  co  cq 


os  rf  oo  >-h  cq  • * co  co  cq  • toco 


• rH 


CO 


■ I « 

1® 
1 1* 

H 


to 


" I 

- « 


cqcq 


cq 


rH  rH  cq  cq 


rH  rH  Cq 


c 3 


«’  as  cs  «-.n  o;f>.  as  o 


u 


VO 

■O  O 
-H  c 3 


ooioovn 

CO  00  VO  o 

<N  (N  tFCN 

r>  r 

CN  rH 


•vo  • hF  © 
• rH  • O vo 
•CM  • © © 

; ci  * 


VO  VO  O vo 

b-  cn  oo 

VO  VO  ''F 


O vo  »o 

• ON 

• Ov 

• o 

O CN  vo  VO  o 

VO  VO  O O O 

vo  b-  vo 

• O O 

• 00 

• ov 

00  vo  O CN 

CO  VO  I>  CO  CO 

rH  VO 

• tF  vo 

• vo 

* rH 

• VO 

rH  (N  CO  H 
TF 

CO  co 

ooo  • • 

h vo  vo  • • 


VO  o 


CO 

O T3 
» O 
I-I  cvj 


• (NTS 

VO  O 

rH  t<3 


rH>^ 

© O 

t--Q 

rH  cS 


O 

©T> 
b-  a 


©TJ 
vo  O 

iH  evS 


©03 
vo  W 
1^*9 

rH  ra 


©t3 
vo  o 

rH  eS 


1 


"F'd 

vo  O 

i— i ra 


(MOOi1 

VOOVOH 

OHtON 


•00  • CN  CN  <H  o O 

• rH  • o CO  VO  00  CO 
•©  •COO®^|H 
j rH  _ rH  I— I CN  rH 


CO  vo  vo  CO  O O 
<-t  rF  vo  00  ”<F  O 
C0  >—1  rH  © 

•n  c* 


• © © © cn  © 

•VOOMHCO 

• © i-i  vo  cn  hF 

a r»  o 

. rH  (N  rH 


CN  CO  1-1  O 
b*  b-  © © 
rH  (N  »flb 

-H  CN 


•'vf 
■ vo 
• © 


> b-  O rH  O vo 
• © hF  © CN  CO 

■ rH  © 00  © 

' CN  -H  CN 


O CO  00  vo  o »o 

© C0  CN  Oi  C0  b* 
O CN  CN  vo 

r<  o r«  »v 

H H O)  rH 


•tOO'JiOO 
•OvobON 
• 00  CO  b«  b* 


0>ObO 

HCooco 

CN  rH  CN  rH 


• VO  O VO  rH  00  O • 

•O^OnOco  • 

• CN  b-  rH  rH  (Hq  . 


CO  vo  O CO  • vo 
© b»  © rH  • vo 
00  vo-vf  • 00 

vo" 


• rH  00  VO  o • 

• VO  O CN  VO  • 

• O CO  b-  CO  • 

, »n  rv  # 


O • b-  rH  O © © rH  00  00  00  • 

tF  • 00  Tf  vo  » rj  rj<  vo  00  • 


CO 

• 00  H^< 

00 

04  VO  b*  rH 

• 

I co 

• 

vo 

• VO  VO 

• o 

•0»fl»OH 

vo 

• co  oo 

•o 

• vo  VO  CN  b- 

• 

TF 

• VO  rH 

• rH 

• vo  CO  b- 

• 

* rH 

• 

• 

r—i 

• VO  VO 

• O vo  VO  vo  vo  vo 

# 

VO 

• VO  o 

• hF  VO  (N  vo  o 

• 

1> 

• 00  vo 

• CO 

-Vf  vo  O 00 

• 

:<n 

| fH 

• 

vo 

• co  a> 

• tF  (N  00  CN  ^ vo 

# 

o 

• CO  vo 

• O CO  H^1  O rH  CO 

• 

CN 

• CO  rH 

•04 

vo  Ht  vo  CO 

• 

; cn 

• 

CN 

• 

VO 

• VO  VO 

• VO  O VO  CO  03  vo 

vo 

• O »"H 

• rF  VO  vo  VO  b-  00 

• 

O 

• 1>  vo 

•vo 

O VO  rH  rH 

CN 

fH 

# »H 

rH  CN  rH 

* 

OVflO  • hvF  VO  • rH  • VO 

• O CO  o o 

»o 

• ’(NO  • 

• 

vo  o o »n 

• 

• 

co  vo  vo  • tF  O *0  *0 

• CO  O 00  04 

• • CO  00  • 

• 

CN  CO  VO  rH 

• 

• 

• 

<N  00  • O O • ^F  • C0 

. rH  rH  t ■vf  . 

• CO  -rF  rH  co 

• • rH  {©  • 

• • • 
• • • 

• 

• 

CN  rH  rH  rH 

• 

• 

• 

O CO  O • 00  VO  • O • 

• 

• 04  ^ 04  O 

vo 

• -ooo 

• 

VO©  • • vo 

• 

O CO  VO  • VO  »0  * rH  • 

rH  rH  <N  • » C7>  • »0  • 

r , . r i 

^ ! .»«  . 

• 

• 

• rH  (N  TF 
. © TF  b- 

:<n" 

VO 

• • O Ci  Ci 

• • VO 

• 

• 

vo  b*  • • vo 

<N  rH  • • 

O CO  *0  • vo  CN  • CO  • 

• O 40  04  00 

o 

• O 00  • vo 

• 

© •©  • 

• 

. 

CO  ^F  CO  • tF  O • b*  • 

• 

• TF  CO  VO  rH 

CN 

• CO  rH  • tF 

• 

• 

• 

• 

CN  • rH  CN  • VO  • 

CN  CN  CN  # ^ # 

• 

• 40  CO  VO 

rH 

• co  -VF  • 

• 

CN  • 

• 

• 

• 

rH  . rH  CN  .CO  . 

• 

,<N 

• • 

• 

• 

• 

o O vo  • 00  O *04  ♦ 

• 

• O 00  O • 

o 

• • .vo  O 

« 

VO  • • © 

• 

• 

rH  VO  vo  • vo  VO  • co  • 

• 

• O oo  O • 

"■vF 

• • • 00  CO 

• 

CO  • • CO 

• 

• 

rH  CO  • CN  CN  *00  • 

• 

• vo  CN  CN  • 

<N 

• • • rH  CO 

• 

CN  • • 

• 

• 

• 

F'  , r • * • 

rH  # »H  # CO  . 

• 

• 

:<n  : 

• • • 

• • • 

• 

• • 

• • 

• 

• vo  vo  • CN  O • b-  • 

. 

• vo  • O • 

VO 

• • OVOVO 

• 

vo  • • © 

• 

# 

• tF  VO  • 04  vo  *00  • 

• 

• VO  *04  • 

• • VO  rH  04 

• 

hF  • • vo 

• 

• 

• VO  • O • O • 

• 

• CO  • 

• • • 

rH 

• • CO 

# 

CN  • ♦ 
• • 

• 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

V0OC4O00VO  • b*  O 

# 

VO  00  O VO  • 

o 

•VO  O • CN 

• 

©©©  • 

• 

• 

00  (N  co  00  • C4  O 

• 

^ O H (N  • 

o 

• Ht}1  • rH 

• 

hF  © (N  • 

• 

• 

rH  rH  VO  CN  CN  • 04  rH 

cn  cn  , r 

• 

VO  CN  rH  • 

CN  # 

CN 

• rH  • rH 

• 

• 

rH  rH  • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

CN  rH  .TF 

• 

I— 1 9 

• 

• 

• 

• VO  -^F  • CO  vo  • CO  • 

# 

VO  vo  O vo  • 

• • o o • 

• 

• • vo  • 

• 

« 

• rH  rH  • 00  CN  * VO  • 

• 

<N  b*  ^F  co  • 

• • Qi  N • 

• 

• • oo  • 

« 

• vo  • CO  CO  • VO  • 

• 

rH  O »H  • 

• • ^ rH  • 

• 

• 

^ • 

• 

• 

: rn  > > : 

• 

rH  # 

• 

• 

• 

• VO  Vf4  O O O • CO  O 

# 

• O 04  00  • 

O 

• -oo  • 

• 

©o  •© 

• 

• 

• (N  H rF  © rH  .©C0 

• 

• VO  b»  tF  • 

o 

• • rH  O * 

• 

vo  © • ■'$■ 

• 

• vo  vo  VO  *tF 

• (N  (N 

• r • 

CN 

• • t'"  H • 

• • • 

• 

• 

; CN  . CN 

rH 

• • • 

•• 

• 

• 

• • VO  • O VO  • rH  O 

# 

• vo  »o  00  • 

o 

• O vo  vo  • 

• 

• • CN  • O 04  • CN  CO 

• 

• 04  04  o * 

CN 

• tF  CO  rH  • 

• 

• • • 

• 

• 

• • a • VO  • CN 

• 

•HC^d  • 

VO 

• 00  •'F  • 

• • • 

• 

• 

• 

: : : 

• 

• 

:<n 

• 

. 

• • • 

• 

# 

© O vo  • VO  40 

• © 

• 

• 

© rH  © © • 

o 

. 

• © © © o 

• •© 

• 

• 

00  40  rH  • o 00 

• ^ 

• 

• 

© © © © • 

© 

• 

• © CO  CO  rH 

• • vo 

• 

• 

VO  • rH  © 

• © 

• 

• 

CN  ^ rH  • 

CN 

• 

• b*  40  rH 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• F' 

. <o 

• 

• 

CN  I 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• © CO  • VO  40 

• © 

• © © © © 

© 

# 

• o©  •© 

© o © 

• 

• 

• 

• © b*  • rH  © 

• © 

• 

• b-  rH  © © 

rH 

• 

• 00  br  * © 

b-  © rH 

• 

• 

• CN  J>  • rH  © 

• © 

• 

* 

• © CN  rH  rH 

• 

• © © • CN 

f-H  rH 

• 

• 

rH  9 rH 

. b~ 

• 

• 

• 

1 

• 

it  CO-O 

vo  o 

b»  rO 
rH  rt 


I CN 

: 

rH 


VO 

© 

VO 


O 

vo 


©©  ^©©ObO 

# 

• 

©Ob 

• © © 

• CO 

• 

• 

© CN  © © © 

© 

• 

• CO  O 

•nF  CN  -©©tF©©© 

• 

• 

© rF  © 

•©CN 

• © 

• 

• 

•<F  04  ■'F  rH  © 

© 

* 

• tF  © 

CN  © • b-  Hb-F04 

• 

• 

rH  CN  © 

• © © 

• rF 

• 

• 

b^^F  CN 

© 

* 

• © 

CN  *rH  rH  CN 

• 

• 

*N 

o* 

• 

* © 

* 

• 

CN 

• 

• 

* rH 

© © • CN  b-  00  CO  © O 

. 

• • vo 

• © o 

• CO 

# 

# 

• © © © • 

• 

• • © 

CN  © • 00  rH  b-  nF  © C0 

• 

• 

• .o 

• © rH 

• © 

• 

* 

• b-  © CN  • 

* 

• • © 

b-  • tF  -"F  CN  © rH 

• 

• 

• • rH 

• © tF 

• 00 

• 

* 

• O CN  rH  • 

* 

• • rH 

rH 

# 

, , *N 

# rH 

• 

rH 

• 

# 

• 

! rH 

• 

• • 

• • 

VO  O vo 
vo  vo  VO 


o 

■’F 


O 

Co 

£ 

Kl 


< 

O 

HH 

w 

9 

< 

w 

h 

rt 

o 

55 


CO 


\n 

d 


d ctf 

C G 


r— ' p— H 

O O 

H »h 


• rH  "f.  ^ 5 V0 

U > S'?  *P  d 5 

av1so«’£SS.Sou«<2. 


Mr»?fBH2L:Via05  H ^Jh<UVh<D.H 
Hi  3 O o D J 1»H”H  O o ^h  ryH  4)  re  VH  -S  4) 

fcOtefcfcPHQS>*fccnOp4  ^CQfflO>rj£ 


r-l 

, CO  CO  t- 

H ’1'^  lO  * 

»«i2  Oh  £ 

D H ^ C3  Cfi  O 

S <2  J2  vo 
rs  t3  o =2  ri 

-t-*  rj  ^H  >— « rO  C/5  H 

e SSHTsiSi 

CC  rH  ,__i  . H 

* 2 ^ “©i  £<2^ 

T3  2 ^ > c 

2 £ .£  o 

c 2 5*  bo  ^ o 

V-irC  p Ih  ?^r-3 

<t>  CO  H rrH 


CQ 

G o 

«**G 

6 

S -m 

«5  «5  +h  -tH 

» u C 3 

av  [>  4v  o 


tf) 

W c 

rJ  *3 

C/2  +j  as  o 
M v<i£lH  M 
rflTJ'u  m <n 

w £ Rn:3^2 
+j  ra  (4  oT3 

a C 

g C <=>%£ 

r K r5  _y  Jh  CO 

UWC/^HH 


w 

co 


P5 

PQ 


W 

Ph 

O 

P 

w 


^2 

a 


■ 

•Ki 


Ph 

o 


h0 

cj 

H 


w 

PQ 


£ 

5 


ID 

«o  O 
t-^2 

i— i cl 


"tf1  'O 
tO  y 
l>rQ 
i— l cl 


CO 

to 

1>  o 

rH  Cl 


t-^3 
Cl 


I— I r£ 

to  u 
»>X! 
i-h  a 


vo  o 

b-rQ 

ih  cl 


CD 

w 

o 

<J 

>< 

o 

> 


00 

>fl'C 
»rQ 
i— * el 


vo  o 

£jQ 

i-h  es 


cl 


-tf'd 

VO  o 

^•g 

rH  Cl 


C0T3 
vo  o 
t--Q 

rH  Cl 


CM 


O 

g 


TfHOtO  • CO  • VO  >-H  O 1>  CO 
<M  • CO  • CO  CM  vo 


to  CM  b-  rH 


•CO  -CTOWO 
• VO  • CM  rH  to  rH 


OV  to  Tf  to  I-H  O • rH  to  CM  i-h  CO 

rH  <M  CM  • CO  rH  VO  rH 


w-n  hji  to  to  <N  t>  O • ov  -H  co 

too  rH  (M  rH  tO  • CO  CO  VO 


to  to  rH  to  I-H  O • rl  o N VO  (M 


CM 


tO  • VO  rH  VO 


o oo  • to  lo  •COOJOiOOOHf 
to  no  * • <N  rH  <N 

1>  cl  • • 


05  03  to  • rH  00  • VO  VO  <M  CO  CO  Hf 


H}1  (M  rH  C0 


CO  • VO  CM  rH  00  Hf  05  Ol  T*  CO 
• rH  rH  CM  rH  rH  ^ 


(NN  • VO  <M  vo  CM  05  Tf  • CM 
•CM  rH  rH  00  • 


(OH  CM  rH  o CM  • to  rH  (M  Tfl  Oi  Tjt 

o rH  O}  -CM  CM  tO 


vorH  o • CO  VO  • O (M  vo  to  CO  CO 

Vfjo  rH  • H rH  • CO  CM  rH  VO 


OH  • to  rH  (M  vo  00  to 
rH  H • CO  CM  VO 


• co  i 


CM 


»0  CM  -H  Tf  00  05 
^ CM  rH  VO 


cm 


I vo 


CO  CM  05  > 


Co 


F*h 

£ 

S*3 


< 

u 

W * 

M H 


V 

09 


A 


cd 

.9  o 


• CO  Hf  co  to  00  (N  •HjrH 


rH  05  CM  CM  O-  rH  CM 
CM  CO  CM 


(M  l>  05  to  O Hf 
vo  CM 


CM 


vo  tO  CO  05  vo  (M  • rH  ^ 
rH  lO  • »-H 


0’_ 

a e2  £ ^ ^ 2 ^Tl.Sr£3  43  tand 

h £ £ £ cJS  J3  0 °*§ 

in  « ^ O « « 0}  «k2-r  O o 

g £(?£££  PnQ^ZcflOfe 

Z 


O 00  Tf  CM  ■ 

to 


vo  CO  CO  »o 

rH 


to 


VO  VO  O • » <M  rH  . CM 
rH  • CM  • 


rH  . ©q  • rj1  rl  H • tO  rH 


• rH  CM  • 00  VO  • • rH 


H H Tf  rH  05  •t'* 


CM  VO  VO  rH  VO  O rH  . rH 


00  to  rH  00  to  t>  • Hp 

rH  CM  rH  • 


H (M  00  H CM  t>  00 
HH  CM 


CO 


CM  to  • 


09 

V 


el 


09 


ci  t» 


09 
03 
co  a 
T3  cl  « 

=2i5  da*  <u 
.73  ^ cti 
h->  «>  a Eh 

^■Sf ’Bills 

HrC 


co  oq 

• Tf 


• CO  05  VO 

• Tj< 


• Hf  t> 

CO 


vo  1>  co 

CM 


• cq  i> 
•CO 


• co  vo 

•CO 


• oq  t>  rH 


O CM 
CM 


•CO  »o 

•CO 


■ 05  co  CM 
•CM 


• 00  VOCM 
•CO 


• 05  vo  CM 

• co 


05  rH  (>q  . 


g el 


Vh  > 


z 

<1  „ 

W ^3  5 « u > io: 
cq 

Eh  JJ  ^ (U.h  m O C 3 

^ pqpqO>H^ 

U 


C/3 

W fl 
J*e3 

CO  H 

HH  C 

cSt3t3 

a w 13  C'O^ 


' Hf<  tO 


•IOO 


• t>  CM 


•vo  *CM 


•t'i'i* 


• rH  H}|  oq  cq  • 


• to  CO 


•050  • 


• • l>  >o  • co 


' t>  09  • • 


• CM  O vo  • • 


■ to  o • • 


IH  i-i  TO 

cd  d at 
y C 


cl 


^ Se§1, 


W 

Ph 

o 


rH 

0 rQ  Cl 

» a 1 a 

o SrfH  B. 

5h  rH 


CO 


: 5 

K. 


H H ' 


! ® 
w 
1 N 


h 


• rH  r | 


H r 


• 00  CM 


cl 

Vh 


0Wc/]i 


^pSo  ^ 

g WOWPhc^O^  g<< 


< 

u 


H w 
W <u 

9 *H 

c 9 

«H  N 


1 Lh 

| a 

^ S 

!o 


w 


1765 
(abc  ) 

100*000  • *C  • o *o  >-h  o © • 

CO  *0  © © -CO  • 00  00 CO  O co  • 

(M  Ol  rH  .00  • Tf  ® *0  CO 'H  * 

f»  #*  **  • 

^ H t H (N  , 

. o *o o <o O >h i -oo 

• O CN  ft  co  CN  00  • *o  -a 
«C0OHH(N<0  . -H  1> 

th'  r—{  r—i  * 

• 

4,348 

220 

. . -oo  • • 

. . • CN  00  • • 

• • . CO  CO  • • 

• • . . . 

...  . . 

• • . -o 

• • • • lo 

• • • • 

• • • • 

1764 
( abed ) 

OlflOO)  • O • 00  00^*0  • 

Tj«  t"-  CN  *o  • t-  • CO  O o 00  CO  • 

o*  00  CM  • 05  rf  CO  hJ< 

t ^ • 

.CN  . CN 

00’-c*00*00  • • *o 
CO  co  ft  *o  ft  *o  • • l> 
lO  >H  o 1 1 • * 

r*  CN  ! I 

4,974 

590 

475 

673 

900 

• © *o  »o  • 

• CN  CN  * • 

1763 
(acd  ) 

CO  o CO  *o  <N  o • *n  ^ *o  *o  o • 

O ^ 00  rH  rH  • *0  l>  O O *0  • 

00  co  ft  CN  ft  • CN  CO  1-1  • 

;»h  <n  : 

00*0*OCNN  • • • *0 

00HTjift*O<O  • • -ft 

CO  ^ CN  CO  *0  • • • l> 

CN  ^ . . . 

• CN  *0  • • 

• oo  *o  • • 

• 0*0  • • 

395 

115 

• © •©  • 
• O)  • *o  • 

1762 
( abed ) 

CN  CO  CN  © *0  CN  -C0OHOO  • 
00  rf  t-  co  *0  05  •— ICOOCO'-I  • 
CO  CN  ft  *0  CN  t>  • ©^--^*0  CO  1—1  ’ 

|h  H (M  . 

• 0*000000  • O CN 

. 00  O -H  O rH  t—  • CN  ft 

• *0  "Tt  CN  t}1  CO  rH  • Oi 

rs  •*  , 

CO  -H 

2,420 

657 

275 

. . • co  • *o  • 

• • • O • <N  • 

• • • CO  • r— 1 • 

...  • • 

• • • • • 

130 

1761 
( abed ) 

00O'-'OO>fl  -C0HWU5O  • 

CO  co  O CO  ft  • i>  i>  © t- © • 

1>  00  1— 1 C*  • i— 1 CO  co  ■— 1 

, r>  ^ • 

CN  . CN  CN 

o oo  *o  CN  o *o  O • • CN 

CN  O CN  ft  t>  *0  O • • O 

G H H • • N 

^ • • 

CO  . . 

• CO  CO  • • 

• h}1  CO  • • 

• rH  in  • • 

: : 

500 

270 

205 

uo  • *o  O • 
o • •"$  • 

CN  • >~l  • 

• • 

1760 
( ad  ) 

O .0*0  • *o  © oo  *o  © *o  • • 

CN  -0*0  • l>  00  CO  >— 1 00  l>  • • 

CO  • CN  rH  «0  CO  CO  00  I-H  • • 

• • •*  • • 

• •*"*  • • 

i— i*0O*0CN  • • *0*0 

CO  CT>  <0  >-l  co  * • • CO  h}1 

HHCNG  • • • CO 

• • • 

. o • *o  • 

• Cl  • co  • 

• CN  • 

. - . . 

350 

• • • • • 

• • • • • 

• • • • • 

• • • • • 

• • • • • 

1759 
( abed ) 

o • *o  CO  • *o  O »h  CO  CO  CO  • • 

CO  • ^ • rH  © rH  O)  © *0  • * 

(M  • in  CN  • >-^CN  ft  03  rH^rH  • • 

; ; cn  ’-i  '.  ! 

CO  *o  *o  • o o o • o • 

CO  CN  o • o *o  00  • J>  ♦ 

CN  CN  O • O • i-h  . 

^ • • 

— * . ■— 1 . 

• O co  • • 

• 00  • • 

. i-H  ^ * * 

! ! 

• • *o  *o  o *n  • 

• • l>  O t-*  • 

• • CN  CO 

• • • 

• *o  © © © 

• CO  CN  © CN 

• CN  i-l 

• 

• 

1758 
(abd  ) 

ID  •O'OOOOcOftCO'O  • • 

•cOCO'cfftGO'OOH  • • 

i— 1 . CO  COHOO-^GH  • • 

r • • 

. ^ . • 

in  • *o  • *o  o o -0*0 

CO  • o « *o  oo  *o  • l>  CO 

. • i-H  " tF 

• • * 

• • • 

1,540 

634 

50 

. . • o o • • 

• • • o o • • 

• • • t}4  rH  • • 

• • • • • 

• • • • • 

© *o  • © • 
CO  co  • *o  • 

• • 

1757 
(abc  ) 

o .*o*o  -ioohiooh  • *o 
rf  • Ci  Oi  .-^t^CNCOftO  -co 
. 1-t  • o liO  CO  CN  CM  •'-I 

, •*  r • 

^ . 

• OO  • H H * "O  • 

. rf  I-H  . o O • • • 

• CO  • CN  • • 

• • • • • 

• • • • • 

2,005 

225 

50 

. . • *o  o • • 

• • • Cl  • • 

. . . <o  o • • 

I-H  ’ 

• • • • • 

• • • • • 

• • • • • 

• • • • • 

• • • • • 

• • • • • 

1756 
( abed ) 

0 0*0*0  • CN  o o *o  co  o • • 

OiO*OCO  • CN  ^ CN  ^ • • 

H *0  00  • >“ ' I— 1 rj  CN  • • 

; rH  (N  . . 

OO*<3OC0OO  -oo  • 

Tf  *0  CN  ^ o Tf  >-H  . CN  • 

CN  CN  ^ ^ * 

• • 

• • 

3,270 

437 

. . .0*0  •© 

• • • CN  h?  • ft 

. • • CO  CN  • CO 

* * ‘ r^  * 

...  • 

• • © © © 

• • JO  CN  00 

• • i-h  CN 

1755 
( abed ) 

IT)  -OO*  • CN  <N  CN  co  co  *o  • • 

CO  .i—iOO  . O*  co  1>  l>  O CN  • • 

co  * 00  CO  *CN  G<OHH  • • 

9\  r • • 

; ; rH  cn  . . 

0^0*000*0  *o  • 

O CO  «-h i CO  CN  • CO  • 

HO)  0*0 

2,788 

252 

85 

1,068 

795 

00T 

1754 
( abed ) 

O .*0O  • O *0  CO  *0  CN  CN  • • 

Tjt  .0*0  • CO  rH  os  r-4  00  O • • 

. ^ (N  . *0  CO  CN  rH  CN  • • 

; CN  . . 

• HOOO*nH  • o • 

• 00 O O • >H  • 

• CO  O CO  co  l'*  • *o  • 

»*  **  • • 

. «H  -•  . 

4,016 

482 

110 

150 

625 

1,310 

• oo  o © © 

• 00  rf  *o  © 

• ^ i-H 

1753 
( abed ) 

o .*0*0  "HlflOMOO  • • 

Tf  . CO  CN  • *0  O t>  O * O • * 

.10*0  *ft  OlO’-^'^'  • • 

• ;-h  cn  * ! 

O O O O oo  o o • »o  • 

CO  *C  *0  CO  CN  'cf  • CO  • 

in  CN  c*  • CN  • 

3,804 

495 

135 

. . • 00  o • • 

• • . 00  . • 

• • • CO  CN  • • 

i-h" 

...  . • 

.©©  .© 

• Oft  • *o 

• lO 

• • 

( P ) 
Z>$1\ 

CO  -0*0  .*0NOO*0O  • • 

CO  -COCO  • Ci  -H  CN  Hi’ 0^  • • 

rH  . i— i .CO  I-H  CO  • • 

• 10*0  • • CO  • • • • 

• 0*0  • *o  • • • • 

■ -h  CO  • • CN  • • • • 

• • • • • • • 

• • • • • • • 

1,800 

80 

160 

• • *o  © • • • 

. • 1>  Tj<  • • * 

• • rH  • • • 

• • • • • 

• • • • • 

. .©  • • 
• • »o  • • 

o 

k 

k 


< 

U 


Co  pi 


G 

3 


k 

k 

£ 

k 


o12 

O o 


ca 

>»*g 

<U  2 
co  ^ 
u > 
<u 


5 G 
G G 

12  »ph 

’ 

2 ° 

(UTS  ca  rt 

H rt  P W <H  ca 


i'is 


oo 
^3 
co  c 
'G  ca  go 

CO  is 


J8">^&g|;g*2-frg 
S’S  £ £ £ §.2  *3  £??  g o § 

d 3 o d i)  § Dl2-- o o i;  ° 
£ O' £ £ £ Oh  Q S > £ CO  O k 


£ G 

•<  « co 

2 

PQ  g d "£•?  > 
PQ  G 5 ?!  6c  > 


, i 

HH  T3 


U 


CO 

W G 
i— 3 "3 
co 


G ^ 

T3  c • G 2 d ffi  .2 

-th  G l“l  H 

^ G <J  ■ ■ CO 

yg.S  fetl  2^3 

253i1/3^ctoco+i'ti 
_ „^3  })  ^ u.3  « d G 3 
rp  <UG>p-vr'^>^>r^0 
5cqpqO>J!>h-]|>Uco 


ffi 

co 


rnTP'G 
B C G-O 


be ' 


Pi 

PQ 


OHco££ 


. E'3.o  * 

G <D  o O Q,*2  03 

WOffiPwcoO^ 


Gj 

^ _J  c/3 
618-1 
g«<s 
< 


co 

T3 

G 

ca 

'co 


<u 

T3 

b 

co  4) 

.<*>►> 

H 

ca  <u 
G ft 
ca  ca 
UU 


a 


bt 
• t>4 

■Kt 

bl 

bn 


Q> 


Ph 

o 


<D 


-Q 

03 

H 


pq 

w 

pq 


5 

2 


to  o 
b.Q 

i— I d 


Tf  b l'*  i— ( 
T*  lO  pH 


O • Tf  Tf  CM  »0  00  Cl 
b • If)  CO  05  pH 


pHO5pHC0tO00ClClCOtO 
’-•  CM  (NOlHOI  r-t 


OOC1H 

00 


hh^ioo 


Cl  pH  pH 


__,  05  b tO  b 

Slj  Tf  to  Cl 

»X3 

i— i el 


O • Cl  O 05  to  Tf 
00  • *f)  CO  pH  CM 


W(0  5t(NH!O(N(0  • to 
<—1  co  to  tf  to  . 


Tf  io  b to 

00  r-t 


cm 


* 00  05  . 


CO  b*  to  o 


ID 

o t) 

ft " 


«- 

ec 


co  O05OO(NO  • Tf -rf  o Tf  00 

to  TJ  ^ to  r-t  r?  • to  CO  pH  Cl 

by  • ph 

■-I  d 


Tf  Cl  05  tO  CO  05  • CO  • CM 
Cl  to  CO  • l>  • 1-H 


■ co  IH  00  I 

If)  pH 


Cl  • • O tO  CM 


>f)  Tf  • <Jj  KJ 

• '£' 

. ft 

I H ' 


0103  00  CM  05  to  b CO  'OcoiON-tf 

too  co  1—1  CO  G1  o • 05  to  Ol  CM 

b.O  i— I • i— ( 

pH  d 


PHTfpHCObtOCMOOpHTf 
CM  CM  b tO  to  pH 


• to  ■ 
■ to  i 


Cl  • to  CO  • co 


• «S 

■ h’ 

v, 


i-Hpq  p-1  co  to  ^ CM  05  • CO  05  to  to  Tf 
too  TfcOOOpH  00  •05PH05I-H 


b.Q 

pH  d 


CM  CM  CO  ^ CO  to  pH  to  • pH 
pH  CM  00  tO  • pH 


to  PH  CM 

to  pH 


T*  • • b*  tO  pH 


t>  • pH  tf 


O CO  CM  b»  05  • b CO  b Cl  O 05 

tOT3  pH  CO  • CM  CO  pH  tO 

b d • 


pH  to  to  CO  rf1  pH  • CO  pH  tO 
pH  CO  • CO 


•Tf  • CM 


CM  • • to  Tf  CM 


to 


0 

01 

M 


0503  pH  pH  05  05  • Cl  IO  tO  Cl  Tf  O • 

too  CM  to  PH  .to  ■'tfdb.PH  • 

b*-Q  pH 

pH  d 


Oi05OC0tO00H00C0 
CO  Tf  CO 


pH  CO  b*  pH 
Tf 


CM  • CO  to  CM  to 


CM  co  Cl  Tf  £’ 

1!) 

N 


CO 

w 

O 

<! 

>< 

O 

> 


00 

to-d 

b,0 

pH  d 


•COCOGltotOOpHtOb* 
• pH  CM  Tf  Tj  CM  to 


pH  pH  tO  • tO  00  pH  b tO  ' 
Cl  *CM  Tf 


pH  Tf  00  CO 
01 


to  to 


01 1 


b 

tf)  o 

pH  03 


CO  • CO  rf  « 00  CM  00  O »o  to  "CM 
pH  • CO  pH  • pf  CM  CM  »f) 


' CM  pH  pH  CM  b-  • CO  CM 
CM  Tf  pH  • CO 


•tO  If)  01 

co 


CM  i 
■ CM  ■ 


tOT3  05  pH  05  05  • to  co  to  to  CO  CM  • • 

Ifl  U pH  b CO  • to  CO  PH  pH  pH  • . 

b pO  • pH  . . 

pH  « 


H pH  05  H CO  pH  05  O 00 
Cl  pH  pH  pH 


• to  O CO 
' to  pH 


05 


I O pH 
CO  CM 


■co 


1 CM  pH  C V 

' Ifl 

N 
I H 


tOTJ  ^ • tO  co  • CO  Tf  o to  05  00 

too  CO  • b Cl  • to  Tf  CM  pH 

b rQ  * * PH 

pH  d 


tOCOTfpHtbrfpHOOi 
CM  pH  cm  O 


CM  to  O Tf 
tO  pH 


CO  • • CM  b*  pH  pH 

• • CO  pH 


' p Ifl 

' Ifl 

' Is 

P 


TfO  1>  • CM  b • Cl  Cl  1>  05  b- pH  • • 

too  CO  • to  CM  • b*  Tf  pH  o Cl  • • 

b*  »-Q  • • pH  • • 

pH  d 


•CObpHClbbTfTf 
' pH  CO  Tf  pH  pH  © 


CO  b to  i 

to 


O • Cl  b CO  • pH 
pH  • pH  Cl  • 


05  CO  pH  p tf 

X! 

N 


CO  03  b • Tf  00  • pf  Tf  00  b 05  Tf 

too  CO  "toco  *00  Tf  Cl  pH  cm 

b ,0  • • pH 

fh  rt 


Tf  bif  HO5O5  00  HC0 
pH  Tf  CM  pH  O 


I O pH  U)  l 

b pH 


00  • • b PH 

• • Cl 


I 05  Tf  • p o 

• X) 

* l' 
p 


Cl  CO  *00  05  • Tf  CM  Tf  05  to  CO 
^2  T3  * 'H  • Cl  pH  rf 


Cl  O • CO  O *05 
Cl  • pH  • CM 


CM  CO  Tf 

CO 


I Cl 


t<5  -~N 
<tJ  05 
tj  tu 

g’C 

is  8 

S&3 


< 

u 


d d 


E“H 

o 

Eh 


d 

cn  H 


.S  c 


CW 


< 

X 


h 

« 

o 


| si 

g^^i^|Uu-2d 

=hh  « 1/3  b/jp© 

^*2  > ^ §■  gj»t:  -g  oh 


^ t»  e— p 

W-oS  Si  h . 

QH  0)  d H . - ojb,.  <U  <U  5 

^ PQCQO^iJI^i-Qp>CJc/) 

u 


03 

H3 
to  c 
'S  d « 

C ^ QJ 

d,w' 


c-d  *3  S 


5-S  | is  IS  gi  I'gtS  o’g 

o 3 0 y y ^ O § y O 

a,QS>Zc«0E 


C/3 

w 

pj 

C/3 


d 


t 
t 

c 
R 
? 
R 

2l  ^ 


d 


C/3 


pqT3t3 
w 3 3 Pd  w 
+j  d d pd 

E 2 

“ h 3 o y 

^ OWcfiq 


I— < 

y gPd  « 

a®  C 5P 

o £ 5, 

" *3  U 


a 


Ca 


PQ 


W 

&H 

§ 3 y o S ^ 

g W0K&HC/30 


H >» 


d rb  ' 1 


< 


2 8| 

S-S  H> 


T3 


d 05 


d S S 

v_h  d d 

<^UU 


N , 


( sqs) 

QQ/.T 

Mioioci  •©  •woovioio 
t"  co  © t-  • © • cn  rtf  o cn  © 
rtf  CO  CO  CO  • O • OC  °lr7c°  *° 
of  of  | rtf  i 04  rH  rtf 

O>nOOc0NH0>OO 

(01-0004C0040000C004 

4>inrHinoo©coo4C4 

#>  *N  r-  rs  ** 

rH  H H rH 

o o © © o 

© 04  b-  O 04 

rtf  rtf  © rH 
00 

© © © © o • • 

© © br  © rH  • • 

© © t>  * * 

o©©  •© 

rH  © © • © 

• 

17  64 
( abed ) 

04  in  O co  *oo  • o rH  >h  rtf  *o  • 

Ol  CO  04  b*  -00  •4>rtfrH©©  • 

CO  04  r£04  • <N  • O^  rtf  CO  O^rH  • 

of  of  ‘rtf  * 04  f— ' 

o in  >-h  in o o rH  *o 
© oo  04  04  04  o in  o • co 

4>  O OOOHTf  • © 

04  C0O4  . 

• rtf  © © O 

• O 04  © 04 

• © 04  © © 

lei 

© • • © © • • 

1>  . • © CO  • • 

. . co  © • • 

• • **  . • 

rH  9 # 

© o © © • 

04  © rtf  © • 

04  rtf  rtf  04  * 

• 
• 

1763 
( acd  ) i 

cri  in  oo  oo  04  o • 

OO'JOtO'OH  • rH  J>  rtf  rH  00  • 

rH  -rtf  rtf  rtf  oo  • 04 1>  co  © © • 

04  04  rH  . 04  rH  rtf  rH 

0©©©OCO  •©  *>o 
00  O 04  H 04  • rH  *04 

rH  rtf  1>  04  rH  lO  •©  •» 

»N 

rH  ©04  . © . 

• rH  04  04  O 
•©4>rtf  rtf 

• O 04  4> 
:« 

65 

895 

305 

90 

© o • o © 
© © • © © 
04  04  • 

1762 
( abed ) 

rtf  co  co  co  © o • in  o 04  o in  • 

© rH  co  04  © © • rH  © © rtf  • 

oo  in  in  co  04 1>  • co  rH  rtf  04  rH  • 

«\  r>  r»  ^ # «\  *\  r f'  • 

rH  CO  rH  rtf  . CO  04  © 1—1 

ocoooioOOcoocn 

©04b-rHrtf04t^4>0404 
00  00  04  © ICO  rH  © 04 

«s  n ^ 

rH  rtf  © © 

• © 04  rtf  © 
. © 04  rtf  rH 

• 04  04  Os 

• rtf' 

O • © rH  • O • 

04  • © 04  • t"  • 

rH  • © tr  • rH  • 

• • • 

• • • 

o .o  . . 
04  • © • • 

© • • • 

1761 
( abed ) 

cocooimoo  •cihiooo  • 

04  CO  04  CO  CO  4>  • 4>  04  00  CO  • 

00  CO  04  rtf  in  • 04  b-  O CO  rH  • 

#\#v#N  r • **  r • 

rH  rH  CO  rtf  . CO  rtf 

o oo  o 04  oo  © o 04  *04 

© © 04  04  © o co  © • o 

rtf  O rH  rtf  © CO  • t> 

n c\  r • 

04  rtf  © . 

6,646 

821 

200 

240 

500 

455 

535 

440 

45 

170 

1760 
( ad  ) 

O in  in  • o o co  co  oo  in  • • 

CO  O 00  00  • 00  04  t"  04  00  O • • 

in  rH  rf  04  • 04  rH  co  Hf  04  ^ • • 

#\  # ^ ^ r • • 

rH  _ rH  rH  rH  . . 

H O in  © rtf  o -t-O© 

© rtf  04  rH  04  © * CO  CO  rtf 

04  oo  04  1>  • O rH  © 

rH  rH  * of 

• © • © • 
• © • © • 
. © • rH  • 

: : 

© . . o © © • 

1>  . • O © • 

rH  • • rtf  © • 

• • * 

• • • 

© • • © • 
rtf  • • © • 

04  • • 

• • • 

• • • 

1759 
( abed ) 

co  in  in  co  • O o 04  rH  co  co  • • 

04  4>  04  in  •OOOOON’-I  • • 

rH  rH  (O  • 04  04  04  4>  CO  in  • • 

r ^ • r*  **  _T  • • 

rH  CO  ,04  H 04  . . 

© rH  rtf  O 00  © O 1>  O ♦ 

rH  t>.  © © rtf  © 00  04  l>  • 

rtf  © © © © 04  04  • 

#N  ^ T*  • 

© 04  rtf 

io  oo  co  • 

t*  00  iO  (N  • 

IQ  r-H  • 
^ • 
© 

© • © © O 1>  • 

o • OS  rtf  rtf  co  • 

04  • rH  04  © rH  • 

• • 

• • 

©©©©© 
rtf  © rtf  O 04 

rH  j — 1 04  rH 

1758 
(abd  ) 

in  •i^cooimn^f'Hco  • • 
oo  •^Ncoinco^ocoo  • • 
rf  • in  00  04  04  4>  O CO  co  • • 

04  rH  rH  04  . . 

©©04  • © © o © o © 

© rH  © • © O © © fr  © 

© • © rtf  © rtf 

n . i'  ^ 

rH  . rH  rtf 

© © rtf  © • 

04  rH  >>  © * 

rH  © © 04  • 
« • 
04 

890 

330 

© © © © • 

© © © © • 
• 

• 

• 

i> 

© o 
».3 
rH  cj 

in  • o o • in  o >-h  o in  04  • no 

o • co  co  • "(f  n n >n h n -co 

in  "COCO  • rH  ©t>004  • rH 

n . r»  #\  «n  • 

; 04  . 04  rH  04 

• © © O rH  rH  *©0  * 

.©  04  rtf  O rH  »©l>  • 

. rH  04  © • ^ 

r\  r , • 

; rH  04  .04 

3,255 

504 

98 

200 

1,355 

1,190 

o © • • © 

© 04  • • rtf 

• • 

• • 

• • 

1756 
( abed ) 

rH  o o o • C4  in  04  o 04  in  • • 

m O 04  Tf  • 00  1>  Tf  co  co  ^ • • 

00  rH  -rtf  CO  rlbOO  • • 

CO  rH  .04  rH  ^ rH  . . 

O O O O CO  © O rH  © • 

rtf©©rtfl0©rH04©  • 
© © 1>  rtf  04  rtf  • 

r r 

rH  1> 

5,465 

832 

208 

520 

40 

2,155 

1,660 

390 

90 

120 

280 

1755 
( abed ) 

o • co  co  • 2 'cfl  o »n  04  o • • 

t>  . • 04  o 04 1>  04  CO  • • 

oo  • rH  in  •’“I  in  O co ^ • • 

rH  . CO  . rH  rH  ^ . . 

O H © © © © © © O • 
rtf  rH  04  rtf  © © rtf  rtf  © • 

rH  04  rtf  4>  04  CO 

r\  ^ # 

rH  rH  © 

O 04  rH  © • 

04  rtf  © » • 

©l^rH  • 

© : 

260 

1,831 

1,380 

85 

110 

• • o • O 

• • *o  • o 

• • • f"H 

1754 
( abed ) 

2,096 

2,110 

765 

3,075 

65 

1,958 

778 

4,360 

1,388 

• rH  © O © O rH  © O • 

• © © rtf  © tr  © © rH  • 

• © © 4>  © lr*  © © • 

, «>  •>  . ^ • 

. 04  04  t> 

• rH  04  © © 

• 04  04  t>  © 

• © © 04  rH 

715 

150 

1,205 

1,985 

200 

© © © © © 
4>  © © © O 

© rH  rH 

1753 
( abed ) 

© • 00 -'tf  • oo  O cO  O*  04  O • • 

co  • 04  in  • in  co  rH  o oo  o • • 

4>  • 00  O •©  rH  04  04  in  CO  • • 

r.  . c^V  . r ''  T ? • . 

rH  . 04  rH  .CO  H H ^ H , . 

© o t>  o © o o CO  © • 

O b»  © © 04  rtf  rtf  © © • 

04  t>  © ©CO  rtf  rtf^  04  • 

© i-frH  © 

© © © © o 

rtf  04  rtf  rtf  CO 
©04  © 

© 

550 

436 

2,320 

© © © • © 
© © © • © 
© rH  • 

• 

• 

(N 

rH 

co  • o oo  • t>.  Tf  oo  oo  in  O • • 

oo  • in  04  • j>  co  04  oo  04  >n  • • 

rH  • 4>  04  • rH  in  04  l>  rH  • • 

. . r _? 

. .-1  M • • 

105 

1,460 

335 

616 

1,868 

2,870 

345 

285 

• *100*0  • • 

• • t"*  ^ o • • 

• • H H • • 

• • • • 

• • • • 

• o©  • • 

• rtf  © • • 

• • • 
• • • 
• • • 

«o 

(to  Co 

§5 

OS) 

E-H 

o 

h 


< 

u 

►-H  m-4 

w 

9 

< 

s 

H 
Pp 

o 


a c 

• »— h . 


a cs  a 

« 2 >»‘3  o *3 

C S’SH  I S’g-^S 
| 0^5  sig  g|uO«  « 

^■eSis|S|“i1o-s 

zo'Z£zphq£;>£ 


a -- 

' ^ O "Z  *-H 

720h 


7h  w 

<3  a 

W ^ 
W 2 
PP  £ 

S 3! 


as 

T3 

„.  to  d 

iJ  2 

•Sl-S^g 

bjq'o 

S lhT3  c3<h  cj 

~ S-l  to  L_n  ’-“ 1 

5+3.3  >T3  o>  -h  j+  -3 

S^bfl^eccd+i+H 
J 4)  to  D.Jh  «1  4)  C S 

pq  O > J £ J !>  u </) 


S a ® a)r-i  i-  a jj  o o 
0Wcfl£h2  g WOffiPn 

W 


Ih 

cd 

4-* 

C cd  ^ 

l^a 

- * p- 

P-l 

< 


CflO. 


tf 


on 

T3 

a 

d 


<u 

T3 

»H 

CO  (U 

.22  > 

«H 

cd  <d 


co  .£)  • 

0) 

c a. 

nJ2  3 d 


(H 

<<2UU 


9 6 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [feb. 

NOTES  TO  TABLE  II 

1 Includes  Belle  Isle  (British  after  June,  1759). 

2 Includes  Montreal  and  St.  Lawrence  River.  The  province  of  Quebec  became  British 
after  the  capture  of  the  cities  of  Quebec  and  Montreal  in  September  of  1759  and 
1760,  respectively. 

3 Includes  Annapolis,  Annapolis  Royal,  Bay  of  Chaleur,  Canso,  Cape  Breton  Island 
(British  after  July,  1758),  Chignecto,  Ft.  Cumberland,  Halifax  and  Louisbourg  (Brit- 
ish after  July,  1758). 

4 Includes  Long  Island. 

5 Includes  Philadelphia. 

6 Includes  Newcastle-on-Delaware  and  Wilmington. 

7 Includes  Petersburg. 

s Includes  Cape  Fear  and  Roanoke. 

9 Includes  coast  of  Florida  and  Pensacola.  Florida  became  British  after  the  Treaty 
of  Paris  in  February,  1763. 

10  Includes  New  Providence,  Turk  Island  and  West  Caicos. 

11  Includes  Cuba  (Havana),  Hispaniola  (Monte-Christi  and  Santo  Domingo),  Jamaica 
and  Porto  Rico. 

12  Includes  St.  Croix,  St.  Thomas  and  Tortola. 

is  Includes  Anguilla,  Antigua,  Dominica,  Guadeloupe,  Montserrat,  Nevis,  St.  Eusta- 
tius,  St.  Kitts  and  St.  Martin. 

14  Includes  Barbados,  Grenada,  Martinique  and  St.  Vincent, 
is  Includes  Curacao  and  Sal  Tortuga. 

16  For  the  convenience  of  those  who  are  interested  in  the  ownership  of  the  West 
Indian  islands  the  following  compilation  is  offered: 

British  West  Indies:  Bahamas  (New  Providence,  Turk  Island,  West  Caicos), 
Bermudas,  Jamaica,  Leeward  Islands  (Anguilla,  Antigua,  Dominica  [after  June, 

1761] ,  Montserrat,  Nevis,  St.  Kitts),  Virgin  Islands  (Tortola)  and  the  Windward 
Islands  (Barbados,  Grenada  [after  February,  1762],  St.  Vincent  [after  February, 

1762] ). 

Danish  West  Indies:  St.  Croix  and  St.  Thomas. 

Dutch  West  Indies:  Curacao,  St.  Eustatius  and  St.  Martin  (southern  half). 
French  West  Indies:  Dominica  (until  June,  1761),  Guadeloupe,  including  the 
northern  portion,  Grande-Terre  (British  from  May,  1759  to  February,  1763), 
Grenada  (until  February,  1762),  Martinique  (British  from  February,  1762  to 
February,  1763)  and  St.  Martin  (northern  half). 

Spanish  West  Indies:  Cuba  (British  from  August,  1762  to  February,  1763), 
Hispaniola  (the  eastern  portion,  i.e.  Santo  Domingo),  Porto  Rico  and  Sal  Tortuga. 

17  Includes  Honduras  and  the  Mosquito  Shore. 

!8  Includes  Surinam  (Essequibo). 

19  Includes  Albany,  Bristol,  Cowes,  Dartmouth,  Dover,  Exeter,  Falmouth,  Hull, 
Liverpool,  London,  Newcastle,  Plymouth,  Swansea,  Tingmouth,  Topsham,  Water- 
ford, Whitby,  Whitehaven  and  Workington. 

29  Includes  Ayr,  Glasgow,  Greenock,  Irvine,  Kircaldy,  Kirkwall,  Leith,  Orkneys  and 
Stromness. 

21  Includes  Belfast,  Cork  and  Newry. 

22  Includes  Guernsey,  Jersey  and  the  Isle  of  Man. 

23  Includes  Hamburg. 

24  Includes  Amsterdam  and  Rotterdam. 

25  Includes  Faro,  Figueira,  Lisbon,  Oporto  and  St.  Ubes. 


1948]  Routes  of  Boston’s  Trade,  1752-1765  97 

20  Includes  Alicante,  Barcelona,  Bilbao,  Cadiz,  Corunna,  Ferrol,  Ivica,  Malaga  and 
St.  Lucar. 

27  Although  geographically  a part  of  Spain,  Gibraltar  is  listed  separately,  being  a 
British  colony. 

28  Includes  Cagliari  and  Leghorn. 

20  Includes  Fayal  and  Western  Island,  the  eighteenth-century  name  for  the  Azores. 

so  Includes  Teneriffe. 

si  Includes  Bonavista  and  the  Isle  of  May. 


TABLE  III 

The  Termini  of  Boston’s  Trade,  by  Specific  Ports,  1752-1765 


10 

to  o 

rH  03 


CM 


x}1  ^ 
to  o 
1>X3 

rH  rt 


CO 

<O'0 
l>  o 
rH  rt 


CM  -o 
CO  o 
J>.Q 

rH  a 


rH  ^ 

tO  O 

rH  C« 


00 

to-d 
t- JD 
rH  CB 


>0  o 

£ja 

rH  pj 


tO  13 
IT)  O 

rH  w 


to  03 
to  o 
*>•9 

rH  C8 


to  o 

rH  03 


OO  >X3 

»o  o 

t>,0 

rH  CJ 


(N 


CO 


V) 


x*  CO 


CO  xf 


O *0 
tO'd 
t>«  rt 


O to  cm 

10  o 

*^•9 

rH  CS 


OJ  rH  rH 

CM  "31  • 

> • . 

• ^ rH 

to  • • 

• <M  CM 

> • • 

• 00  If 

• 

• • 

• 

• • 

• 

• • 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

• • 

• • 

• 

Co  CO  • 

. • to 

5 

5 

lO  rH  • 

*x  co  xj 

tx  . . 

• CMC 

• 

• • 

• • 

• 

• 

• • 

• rH 

• • 

• • 

• 

• • 

10  • • 

^ -rH 

*X  OW 

• 

• 

ts  • • 

• Tp  • 

n-  • co 

3 

2 

CM  I-H  • 

•X  CMCM 

• • 

♦ CMxf 

• • 

• • 

• 

• 

* 

• • 

• CM 

• • 

• • 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

b,  . • 

•X  CM  «— 1 

CO  • rH 

*x  • • 

• tO  rH 

• 

• • 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

*0  • • 

*x  CM  • 

O)  • • 

• rH  • 

• 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• • 

<M  • • 

• CM  -1 

CO  • co 

CO  • • 

• N • 

K,  to  CM 

00  • • 

• to  CM 

• • 

• 

• 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• 

*x  • • 

tfr  tO  rH 

tx  . . 

• • 
• • 

• t>»  rH 

•X  • • 

Oi  to  CM 

tx  . • 

• CM  x* 

rH 

*X  • • 

• rH  j 

• • fH 

• • 

• • 

rH  • 
• 

*H  • * 

• • 
• • 

• • • 

• • • 

• • • 

• l>  • 

• • 

• • 

b*  C0  co 

to  • . 

• 

• 

• CM  • 

CM 

to  t-t  00 

Ol  ♦ • 

• X*  O 

• • 

• • 

• H H 

• • 

• 

• • 

• 

*H  rH 


H • 
• 
• 

*X 

•CM 

• 

• 

<N 

•Cl 

• 

• • 

• 

• • 

CO  00  V)  CO 
*X 


CO' 


CM  *CM 


CM  CMCM 


*X 


00 


*X  CM 


CM 


'X  rH  tO 
rH 


*h  CM  tx 


to 


OH  Ex  OH  Ex  OH  Ex  OH  Ex  OH  Ex  OH  Ex  OH  Ex  UW  Ex  UH 


13 

>» 

o 


3 

05 

eg 

• rH 

03 

ci 

0) 

4-> 

q 

W 

CD 

a 

'o 

Pi 

'o 

a 

e a 
G 

O 

0 

CJ 

0 

+-> 

CO 

rH 

P 

bo 

ca 

a 

ca 

G 

be 

*■0 

u 

rO 

fa 

<4H 

;q 

£ 

a 

a 

G 

G 

fH 

ca 

< 

< 

< 

< 

< 

< 

< 

< 

pq 

© 

© o 
t-xxl 

rH  ea 


© o 
ca 


o • 

O OO 

o © • 

o • • 

• vo  o 

VO  • • 

• VO  © 

vo  • • 

• o »o 

»o 

r-H  • 

XH  © © 

»o  b-  • 

b*  • • 

• CM  xp 

Co  • • 

• »o  © 

. . 

• co  VO 

oo 

rH  • 

*x 

»x  co  • 

CO  • • 

• »"H 

*x  • • 

CM 

• vo  CM 

vo  • 

lo  o • 

o • • 

• • vo 

vo  CO  • 

CO  © • 

O © vo 

vo  • • 

• ©© 

o 

CM  • 

CM  O • 

o • • 

• • VO 

»0  b-  • 

b.  Xf  • 

> © 00 

b • • 

• CM  © 

»H 

CM  • 

CM  CO  • 

co  • • 

•CM 

CM  >-1  • 

*x 

xp  rH 

Co  • • 

• • 

• 00  xp 

co 

• 

• 

• • 

• • 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

»H 

CO 

©T) 

b*  o 

rH  ta 


ID 

© 

CM 


© 

© 

<M 


o o 

00  CM 


O 

o 

CM 


•© 

•© 


o 

© 


t-  c 

CM  rH 
©CM 


CO 


CM  t3 
© o 

rH  ca 


,-JFd 
© o 
bX3 

rH  ta 


o 

©T) 

b-  ca 


oo 

O CO 
CM  -h 


© in 
CO  O 
CM  CM 


© 

xp 

CM 


o • • 

• vo  • 

vo  • VO 

vo  © • 

o © • 

© * • 

• © • 

© • b» 

br  00  • 

00  VO  • 

co  ' • 

• CM  • 

CM  • xH 

XH 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• • 

* 

* 

• 

o . • 

• • • 

• • • 

© • 

O VO  © 

\p  . • 

VO  © © 

M-  . • 

• 

• 

vo  . • 

> • • 

CM  • • 

• * 

O 

© 


© 

CM 


co 

> 


OO 
O CM 


O 

o 

CO 


o 

CM 

cm 


o o 

CO  Co 


o 

o 

Co 


CM  CO 

co  x* 

xp  (M 


O © 
© © 
CM 


O 

© 


£ 

CO 


© 

o 

co 


o 

© 


©T) 
© o 

t-rQ 

rH  ca 


o 

xp 


o 

’H 


© vo 

rH  b» 


o 

© 

*H 


• o 
■ 00 
■ CO 


o 

oo 

co 


o 

CO 

CM 


o 

oo 

CM 


oo 
00  00 
^ rH 


o 

co 

co 


VO  O 
00  VO 
CM 


»o 

co 

CO 


00 

VOT3 
b-XJ 
rH  ca 


© 

O • • 

© 

co  • • 

• • • 

• • • 

. io  • 

• • • 

• • • 

o 

© 

♦H 


00  VO 
CO  x* 
VO 


CO 

oo 

Co 


»o  o 

CM  00 

co 


Vo 

o 


VO  <J 
rH  cs 


© • 

o • • 

© • 

© • • 

• • • 

• • • 

• • • 

. 00  • 

• 

• 

• 

© 

Oo 

CO 


vo  vo 
CM  © 
CO 


o 

CM 

K 


oo 

rH  co 
CO  rH 


o 

£ 


COT) 
VO  CJ 

l-g 

rH  « 


•vo 

•X* 


»o 


o 

xp 


o 


CM 

CO 

CM 


CM 

CO 

CM 


O CO 

Xf  rH 
CO  rH 


co 

»o 


VO  O 
Os 

xp  CM 


© 

CO 

b 


©T) 

vo  o 

tx,Q 
rH  ca 


o 

xp 


o 

>p 

*H 


CO  vo 
CO 


oo 


oo 

xp  CO 
CO 


o 

b. 

co 


VO  O 
00  CM 
co  vo 


*0 

o 

CM 


xp  T) 
vo  o 

l^rQ 
rH  ca 


»o 

b» 


© 

K 


o 

CO 


o 

oo 


o 

vo 

XH 


VO 
CM 
• co 


© 

CM 

CO 


o 

xp 


o 

M- 

XH 


oo 

xPO 
CO  CM 


© 

© 


CO  VO  *H 

co  co  b* 


• o 

• 00 


o 

oo 


vovo 
co  O 
vo  co 


o 

b. 

oo 


CO  r^J 

vo  o 

b>rQ 

rH  a] 


CM 

vo^j 


»o 

VO 


© 

»o 


© 

b. 


• VO  Vo 

• oo  oo 


o 

xp 


o 

O 


o 


© © 

vo  ©© 

O 

rH  © 

b.  © Tp 

> 

© 

© CM  xH 

Co 

© • 

If)  • • 

© • 

• • 

o 

• 00 


o 

Co 


OO 
CM  CM 
© xp 


o 

rH 

xp 


O 

co 


o 

»H 

> 


UH  Ex  UH  Ex  OH  Ex  UW  Ex  OH  Ex  OH  Ex  OH  Ex  OH  Ex  OH  h 


13 


>» 

O 

a 

Ph 

H 

& 

co 

09 

ca 

iG 

Ih 

<D 

o 

a 

'o 

ft 

•M 

‘3 

C3 

a 

CO 

rt 

bfl 

G 

0 

5 

G 

G 

G 

<1 

< 

< 

< 

ca 

0 

.fcn 

"■H 

a 

< 


Sr 

< 


05 

o 

no 

ca 

rQ 

Sr 

ca 

w 


a 

8 


<D 


C3 

H 


o 


PS 

w 


5 

2 


90 

o o 
J>jQ 

rH  ta 


^T3 
50  O 
1-X3 

i— i aj 


co 

50  T3 
*p  u 
pH  ca 


(NT3 
50  o 
t- J3 
pH  ca 


pH  pQ 
50  O 
tpjQ 
pH  ca 


o 

50 -d 
*p  ca 


oj-d 
90  o 

pH  Ca 


C/5 

w 

o 

>< 

o 

> 


oo 

io^d 

i»x> 

pH  Ca 


Ip 

»0  o 
*^.0 
pH  ca 


. . 

• rH  • 

ph  CN  • 

(N  • rH 

PH  90  50 

♦H  pH  CO 

^ rH  • 

• rH 

PH  • • 

• • 

• • 

• 

• 

PH 

• 

• 

• • 

* 

' 

• 

* 

* 

• • 

©J  pH  • PH 


00  00  50  90  l>  CN  pH  • ph 


CN  CN  CN 

>*•  pH  pH 

OJ  • • 

• cot- 

O PHHf 

ic  • • 

• rH  • 

PH  • • 

• 

• • 

• 

PH 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• 

• * 

* 

• * 

• • 

* * 

CO  00 


<N 


CO 


(N 


90  50  "H  <N  CO  »0  • pH  *H 

PH 


CO 


pH  CO  ^ ’M* 


CO  ■ 


nf  m Oi 


<N  »0  N.  • -H  PH 


pH  PS 


pH  CO  > <M  CO  lO  CM  <N  M- 


00 


CN 


CN 


1756 
( abed ) 

• • rH 

PH  CO  CN 

lo  -pH 

PH  >0  Tf 

Oi  CN  CN 

rH 

14 

• • CN 

2 

14 

1755 
) ( abed ) 

• C0  CN 

• 

• 

»0  CN  pH 

CO  • pH 

• 

PH  CO  CO 

50  CO  00 

11 

1 

• rH 

• 

• 

PH  • • 

1754 
) ( abed 

• • • 

• l>  * 

t>%  • rH 

ph  CN 

<C  *H  CO 

rH 

14 

5 

90  * pH 

PH  • • 

1753 
) ( abed 

• C0  pH 

\}-  90  • 

io  • • 

• CO  50 

Oi  • b- 

N.  90  CN 

K • rH 

PH  • • 

1752 
( d 

• * * 

• (N  • 

• • 

• • 

CM  • ; 

• CO  CN 

ifi  . • 

• rH  • 

PH  • • 

UH 

h oh 

Ep  oh 

Ep  oh 

Ep  oh 

Ep  oh 

Ep  oh 

h OH 

Ep  oh 

1 10 


• 1 

0 


CO  (N 


C0 


\ 


N. 

PH 


> 

PH 


53 

u 


CM  (N 


53 


CN 


c n 

XS 

C 

ca 


09 


-M 

</} 

C3 

'U 

6 

u 

09 

o 

ca 

w 

*> 

ca 

C 

+-» 

.2 

C4H 

0) 

rO 

c 

o 

CO 

*Sh 

,pd 

ca 

CQ 

H 

S 

« 

PQ 

O 

u 

ca 

v 

Pm 


09 

a 

ca 

O 


09 

T3 

u 

09 

> 

09 

a 

ca 

O 


o 

09 

c 

be 


pC 

O 


t* 

o 

O 


o 

© 


o 

to 


o 

© 


o 

© 


• o 

© 


o 

© 


o o 
© o 

if)  © 


o 

© 

*H 


O O 
If)  © 


O O 

00  Tf 


O 


o 

U) 


o 

© 


o o o 

*s  CO  CO 


o 

<0 


o 

If) 


o 

© 


If)  If) 
'H  O 
00  00 


o 

cn 

to 


O © 
CO 

co  © 


If) 

O) 


o 


o 

K 


O if) 

t>l> 


If) 

*f) 


© 

• 

© 

oo 

© 

o © 

© 

• 

• 

• 

CN  t'- 

© 

o © 

© 

© • 

© 

• • 

• 

> 

O 00 

© 

© Tf 

CO 

• 

• 

© © 

© 

to  © 

CN 

to  • 

© 

• • 

r-H 

• 

*H 

pH 

*H 

• 

• 

• 

CN  © 

© 

r-H 

cn 

• • 

• 

. 

• 

• 

• 

• • 

o • 

© 

o o 

© 

• 

• 

• 

© • 

co 

• • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

O Tf 

> 

• • 

• 

• • 

• 

• • 

• 

© • 

• 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

© » 

© 

• 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

* 

• 

* 

• • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

o 

CN 


o o 

Co  © 

*h  iH 


O 

CN 


O 

to 

*H 


o o o 

rH  O)  CO 


CO 


If)  CO 
00  CO 
-H  CN 


*H 

co 


oo 

*h 


if)  if) 
CO  CO 


o o 

00  © 


o 

> 


o 

*h 


If)  o 

© rj< 


© 

o 

<N 


If)  If) 
O^f 
<M  -H 


©O 

l>*  to 


If) 

o> 

If) 


o 

00 


© 

© 


o 

If) 

CO 


If) 

co 

CN 


If) 

O) 

If) 


o 

00 


© 

© 


•o 

■o 


•o 
■ o 


■o 

■o 


o 

o 


o 

o 

•H 


o 

o 

*H 


© o 

© © © 

o 

r-H 

oo  © © 

CN 

© 00 

1—1  ^ 

> 

oo 

o © • 

© 

© o 

© r— 1 • 

© 

CN  © • 

© 

o o 

o • o 

o 

-tf  © 

u • © 

© 

fH  © 

to 

o © 

© oo 

o 

© l'' 

CN  l>  © 

© 

»-H 

<M  r-H  r-H 

© 

© © 

o o o 

o 

i>  H1 

CN  © © 

N. 

cn  © 

<o  o 

i "H 

oo 

o o© 

© 

co  © 

*H  Tf  © 

© 

© © 

K HO 

*H 

*H 

o© 

© o © 

© 

© rH 

O CN  © 

© 

CN  CN 

© CN  I> 

© 

O © 

© OO 

o 

t>  CO 

© © o 

© 

fH  © 

© o 

»“H 

o 

C' 

© o 

© -o 

o 

CN  © 

© • o 

O 

CN  © 

N.  . © 

• 

• 

© 

© © 

o • • 

CN  © 

oo  • • 

CN  fH 

© . . 

uw 

h uw 

h 

CO 

to 


If)  o 

00  IH 


o 

CN 


© 

O) 

*H 


o 

CN 


If) 

co 


If) 

CO 


O if) 
t^© 
CO 


o 

If) 


If) 

Co 


© 

co 


© 

to 

> 


o 

© 

*N 


o 


■o 

(N 


© 

CN 


•o 
■ 00 
• CN 


• o 
■o 


•o 

•o 


o 

00 

CN 


o 

o 


© 

o 

*H 


■o  © 

• If)  © 


© 


o 

o 


© if)  © 
CM  © 


if) 


t- 

CO 


© 

"tf 

If) 


If) 

'tj- 

*H 


5 


© 

© 


© 

© 


O©  © 

05  to  © 


© 

© 


o © 

If)  © 


© 

© 


© 

© 


o © © 

O 00  © 


© 

*H 

*1 


o © 
00  © 


© © 
l"  b- 


© 

© 

F-H 


UW  hi  U w h UW  h UW  h 


UW  h UW  h OH  h UW  h 


0) 

T3 

C 

rt 


ct) 

d 

4J 

a 

■d 

& 

o 

4-> 

09 

<4H 

T3 

3 

o 

CtJ 

XI 

CO 

ci 

C 

o 

CO 

N 

'd 

V 

h 

a 

4) 

> 

0) 

a 

u 

0) 

.1 

M 

«-i 

% 

V 

5 pH 

o 

*s 

cd 

cd 

*J3 

o 

PQ 

PQ 

PQ 

PQ 

m 

U 

U 

U 

U 

U 

^3 


8 


<u 


od 

h 


vo  o 

rH  d 


■"tf1  rQ 
O O 
»^2 
i-h  rt 


CO 

<0  T3 

t~  o 
i-(  o3 


<NT3 
<©  O 
t--Q 

rH  03 


i— ( rQ 

<0  O 
t-JO 

rH  03 


O 

<OT3 
l>  cS 


Os  T3 
»o  o 
1>^ 
rH  CS 


</} 

w 

o 

< 

>< 

o 

> 


00 

in^J 

»rQ 
rH  c3 


O 


»0  o 

i-H  pj 


Ph 

w 

PQ 

§ 

5 


(0-0 
io  o 

»-s 

rH  01 


»Ot3 
lo  o 
t- JO 
rH  03 


^ n3 
in  o 
1>J0 
rH  03 


CO  T3 
lO  O 
JO 

rH  (3 


<N 


VO 


"H  • <N  rH  • *H 


CO  CO 


1> 


*H  rH  • *H  (M  • (0}  rH  • >H  • iH  *H  (M  ^ <0 


l"  00 


»n 

*H 


(N  (M  (N 


<N 


(N  rH  I C0 


(N  rH  CO  • rH 


<N 


<N 


I (N 


rH  »H  CN 


CN 


<N 


(N 


"H  rH 


OS  • 05 


CO  • CO 


Ol  (M  H 


O 

*H 


<N 


00 


00 


^H  rH  t-  00 


rH  • hh 


uy  Fh  uw  e^  uh  e*h  uw  Fh  uh  e-h  uw  ^ uw  e^  uh  e>h  uw  ^ ow 


-C 

■♦-> 

etf 

u 

o 

.3 

■5 

CO 

0) 

£ 

o 

6 

-t-> 

in 

"S 

i 

Ih 

09 

> 

3 

O' 

09 

09 

09 

& 

O 

IH 

Ih 

09 

-*-> 

09 

3 

O 

S 
»— < 

13 

>> 

o 

n 

o 

o 

09 

3 

X 

c$ 

C3 

o 

Q 

Q 

Q 

W 

w 

w 

09 

3 

be 


vo  o *o 


Ov  CO 

I <N 


CN 


■ O 

to 


o 

to 


o 

Co 


vo 

CO 


*o 

CO 


»o 
' to 


to 

to 

*H 


to  vo 
b-  vo 

rH  CO 


*1 

Co 

to 


o 

o 


o o 

O b- 

*H 


o 

K 


vo 

b- 


»o 

N. 


CO 

vo 


eo 

*o 


© 
' to 


o 

to 


oo 

>H  vo 
rH  Ol 


o 

to 

CO 


<N 


s 


VO  VO 
OvCN 
CO  CO 


o 

g 


o o 

* OV  Ov 


vo  to 
vo  to 


to 

to 


to 

to 


o o 

<M  Ov 


o 

*1 

CN 


OO 

»© 


o 

N. 

(N 


© 

vo 


o 

to 


o 

<N 


o o 

<N  'tf 

"1 


o 


O 00 

1>  rH 
rH 


00 

oo 


o 

Ov 


o 

ov 


o 

<N 


o 

<N 


o o 

00  00 


vo 

r- 


£ 

*H 


o 

o 

<N 


' vo 

' CO 


to 

Co 


»o  *o 

• CO  CO 


o 

to 


o 

to 


• o • 

O • • 

• • 

• vo  • 

vo  • • 

• • • 

• • • 

• (N  • 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• 

o 

o 


o 

<N 

to 


• o 

■Tf 


o 

> 


•O 

O vo  • 

vo  • • 

• vo 

to  t>  • 

b^  • • 

• • • 

• • • 

• rH  • 

• rH 

• 

• 

*1 

o 

to 


to 

<H 


• • 

• • • 

00 

Oo 

M- 


O 

O 

*H 


O 


O 


• • 

• • • 

• • • 

• vo  • 

o 

to 

to 


o 

(N 


0 o o 

01  »o  00 

<1  CO 


O 

co 

>*■ 


o 

Tf 


o 


UW  Eh  UW  Eh  UH  Eh  OW  Eh  UW  Eh  UW  Eh  UP  Eh  UW  Eh  UW  Eh  OH  frs 


CO 

<L> 

£ 

o 

u 


u 

rt 

Q 


rf 

u 

‘3 

• rH 

3 

o 

Q 


Vi 

<u 

> 

o 


o 

xi 

*3 

© 

ov 

to 

co 

w 


0) 

Qi 

O 

u 

3 

w 


<1 

u 

-t-> 

0) 

X 

w 


X 

•4-> 

a 

3 

o 

c 

•a 

u 

• r* 

4) 

3 

E3 

•a 

>» 

d 

M 

Pm 

Pm 

a 

a 


1 

+-i 


a 


CD 


rO 

03 

h 


O 


W 

pq 


5 

£ 


in 

o o 

ȣ 
i-t  ca 


nf  '■Q 
<o  o 
t^x 

i— ( c3 


CO 

<o-o 

t>  o 

i— t ca 


<No3 
to  o 

^-9 

rH  CS 


i— ( rQ 

CO  O 
Is*  X 

i— l C3 


O 

<oo3 
b-  ca 


0 03 

in  o 

rH  ta 


CD 

W 

O 

< 

o 

> 


oo 

in-d 

t>Xi 

rH  ca 


b- 

in  o 

£x 

rH 


<0  03 
in  o 

»-g 

rH  ca 


ino3 
in  o 
b-X 

rH  S3 


Hf  no 

in  o 

rH  Ca 


co  no 
in  o 
l>  X 

rH  ca 


CM 


uo^ 


»h  in  co 

oo  • • 

. Tf  . 

Xf  . . 

• H • 

• <o 

co  (N  <N 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• 

• 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• 

• 

*H  C0H  l)- 


CO  xf  h. 


CO  O 


<N 


rH  O b. 


»n  co  oo  (N  • <N  co  cm  in 


(N  <N 


xf  b*  »H 


to  Co 


• rH  CO 

M-  rH(N 

CO  xf  CO 

N.  • co 

CO  • • 

• • rH 

*H  rH  CO 

^ O 00 

• 

• rH 

*H  • • 

• • 

pH 

• 

# 

• • 

• • 

00 

*H 


<N  • <N 


CM 


<N 


cun 


*H 


in  cn  co 

in  • b* 

pH  • 

• rH 

*H  * • 

• CO  <N 

• • • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

m «n 


co  cq  in 


Of  rH  in 


rHTf  in 


(N 


<N 


co  co 


O) 


rH  CO  Of 


COCO  CO 


CJ 


<N 


* ( s 

• cu 


• 


•C 

0 


hi 


• <N  <M 

> b-xf 

*H  CM  (N 

4 

7 

N.  • • 

• -H 

CO  • • 

• Tf  <M 

<o  • • 

• 

*H 

• 

• • 

• 

• • 

• rH  rH 

(N  • • 

• 

* 

• • 

• 

• • 

* 

• • 

J 

CO 


D®0 

n 

!?S 


UW  Eh  UW  Eh  UW  Eh  OH  Eh  OH  Eh  OH  Eh  OH  ^h  OH  Eh  OH  Eh  U WE 


"d 

a 

ca 


Sh 

01 

X 

s 

d 

U 


ca 


Ih 

o 

W 


be 

o 

0) 

O 


ca 

u 

x 


£ 

o 

be 

co 

ca 


O 


O 


4) 

c 

c 

a 

*1 

<D 

4-> 

h 

i 

V 

u 

« 

M 

o 

o 

ca 

03 

03 

-H 

G 

ca 

C 

CJ 

0) 

c 

ca 

<v 

a> 

cu 

(r 

u 

u 

Jh 

<u 

ft 

d 

o 


O 


0 


O 


0 


<v 

TO 

ca 

d 

0 


>» 

0) 

co 

e 

CL) 

d 

O 


(abed)  (abed)  (abed)  (abed)  (abc  ) (abd  ) (abed)  ( ad  ) (abed)  (abed)  (acd  ) (abed)  (abc 


• 0 

0 OO 

0 . . 

. to  • 

• ^ 

>*■  Tf  CO 

N.  • . 

. to  • 

• 

• 

I-H 

to  . . 

• CM  ■ 

0 • 

O 0 to 

to  . • 

• co  O 

:o  • 

co  CO  CO 

co  . . 

. O T* 

rH 

"H  • • 

• CO  CO 

• 

• • 

• 

• • 

9 m 

• 00 

0 0 • 

O Tf  O 

• • 

• co  to 

00  ot  • 

Ot  to  0 

• * 

• rH 

to 

C0  CM 

. to  0 

to  to  to 

O »o  CM 

• • 

• CO  I-H 

> Tf  CM 

ts  CO  CM 

• • 

• rH 

"H  I-H 

"H  CO  CO 

• 00 

O O to 

to  0 0 

• • 

• t"  CO 

co  co  O 

CO  to  to 

• • 

• 

CO  CM 

rH  rH 

• • • 

• to  • 

If)  • • 

. . 

• • • 

• • • 

• • • 

• at  • 

Ot  • • 

• • 
• • 

• CM  to 

ts  0 00 

• • 

• • • 

• rH  1> 

00  I-H  Ot 

• • 

• • • 

• • • 

• rH 

IS  CM  CM 

ID 

CM 


CO 

<0 


M- 

to 

tO 


ts 

tO 

co 


o 

o 

CO 


00 

o 

tO 


co 

10 


o 

00 


o 

00 


o 

00 


' >0 
•t> 


• 00 


•tO 

■ o> 

' CM 


*0 

ts 


o 

I-H 

00 


to 

ot 

CM 


10 
10 
' co 


to 

10 

CO 


00 
o o 

—1  CM 


O 


o 

o 

CO 


10  to 
00  to 
t>  to 


lO  CM 
Ot  00 
CM  h* 


O to 
co  >-h 


o 

o 


o 

co 


Is 

N. 

ts 


»o 

*H 


■o  o 

' t>  ts 


»o 


to 

CM 


lo 


»o 

CM 

"H 


to 

■o 


*0 

o 

"h 


OO 
O CO 


O to 
to  t^ 
i-H  co 


o 

■ to 
CM 


OO 

to 

to  ^ 


to  to 
CM  Ot 
at  »o 


to  to 
1— 1 at 

i-H 


o o 
o at 


o 

co 

CM 


to 

CM 

to 


o 

to 

CM 


O 

CM 

O 


o 

CM 

to 


o 

co 


o 

at 

*s 


o 

to 


o 


00 


O 

*o 


o 


00 


at  to 

» CM 
CM  CM 


> 

O 

to 


*1 
t-  ts 


OO 
at  o 
CM  -H 


O 

Ot 

Co 


tot^ 
O co 

i-H  CO 


CM 

■Sh 


to 

CO 


to 

00 


Ot 

at 


os 

Ot 


0 

01 


0 

01 


CM 

»o 

CM 


to  to 
o o 


o 

*h 

<M 


to  t" 
o at 

rH  CM 


CM 

o 


to  to 
to  CO 
CM  CO 


O 

at 

»o 


to 


to 

Xj- 


} 


• • 

• • • 

• • • 

. <0  . 

»o 

co 

CM 


UH  Es  UH  h UW  Es  UW  Es  UW  Es  UW  Es  UW  Es  UH  Es  UW  Es  OH  Es 


h3 

J 

*u 

at 

£i 

s 

a 

o 


& 

o 

pH 


Cl 

bn 

<4 

o 

at 

0 


Pc 

o 

p 

Pc 

JO 

• pH 

O 


£ 

o 

bn 

03 

a 

o 


a 

u 

p 

at 

h 

1 

at 

^a 

c 

a 

p 

O 


a 

*3 

p 

*p 

FQ 

p 

03 

at 

p 

O 


M 

u 

O 

a 

at 

at 

p 

a 


cci 

T3 

C3 

a 

at 

p 

o 


at 

ft 

P 

Ps 

O 

at 

73 

at 

03 

E 

cS 

at 

p 

o 


a 

a 

•Ki 

8 


<L> 


J3 

C2 

h 


in 

to  o 
inJD 

rH  rt 


co 

<Oh3 
J>  o 
>H  rt 


CM  03 

to  O 

i— i rt 


rH  rQ 
CO  O 
tn.0 

rH  rt 


IT)  O 

^-2 
i-H  G 


C/3 

W 

o 

< 

>< 

o 

> 


00 

Jo-d 

J>Xi 

7—t  rt 


pH 

o 


jo  o 

i— i 


pc 

w 


(OT3 
JO  O 

t-g 

rH  CO 


5 

£ 


Jo  t3 
»o  o 

rH  CO 


CO 


CO  rQ 
»0  O 

».D 

rH  CO 


CM 


JO^ 


^ T3 
to  o 
0.0 
rH  CO 


CO  JO 
CM  rH 


00  CM  CO 
CO 


Tf  CO 
CO  rH 


O CO 

*o 


o jo 

JO  rH 


*o 

CO 


o JO  CO 
cord  <M 
l>  CO 


Co 

CM 


O <M 
to 


CM 

co 


oo  o 

Hf  rH 


CO  rH 


»o 


h*T3  ^ JO 
JO  O CM 
t-rQ 


05 

CM 


CM 

*H 


*o 


CM 


CM 


Co 


*H  CO  CO 


05 


05  CO 

CM 

O rH 

oo 

• • 

• 

CO 


*H  CM 


CM 


<M 


*H  CO 


CO  rH 


CM 


t'-  Tf 

rH  rH 

*H  • • 

CO  • • 

• -CO 

• • 

• • 

CO  • CO 

CO  rH  • 

*H  CO  • 

CO  rH  • 
• 
• 

HH  • • 

• • 
• • 

• • 

• • 

• • 

*H  tH  05 

co  t" 
CM 

30 

1 

"H  rH  CO 

> 

• rH  <M 

• 

• 

co  • • 
• • 
• • 

♦ CO  • 

• • 

• • 

co  • • 
• • 
• • 

• • • 

• • • 

• • • 

• 1>  CM 

• rH 

• 

i 1 ^ 

j.  '. 


00  ^ 


O JO 


coco  cf 


in  to 

"H  • • 

CO  • • 

• rH  • 

*H  • • 

• • pH 

*H  • • 

• 050 

t> 

00  • • 

• • • 

• 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• rH  rH 

• • 

• • • 

• 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• 

CM  CM 


05  CM 


CN 


00  • • 

Oo  • • 

• CM  • 

CM  • • 

• • rH 

<H  • • 

Jo  • • 

• • • 

• 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• rH  rH 

• • 

• • • 

• 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• • 

* * 

* 

io  ; 

hi 


05  JO 


CM 


I to 


«10 

NJ 


t>. 


1>  05 

co  • • 

• • pH 

*H  • CO 

co  • • 

• CO  rH 

> rH  . 

*H  . • 

• • rH 

*H  (ON 

CO 

\J*  • • 

• • 

• 

• • 

• 

• 

• • 

• • 

CM  rH 

• • 

• • 

• 

• • 

• 

• 

• • 

• • 

2 « 

X 


to 


t 


N 


UW  Eh  OH  Eh  UH  Eh  UW  Eh  OH  Eh  UH  Eh  OH  Eh  OH  Eh  OH  Eh  OH  Eh 


rt 

X 


rt 

e 

rt 

► 

A 

X 


a 

'o 

• pH 

G 

c3 

cu 

C0 

K 


00 

ctf 

Eh 

G 

'■G 

§ 

K 


o 

EC 


t3 

G 

rt 

"o 

Jh 


Hh 

O 

<u 

EC 


P% 

03 

s 

rt 

o 

cm 

• PH 

O 

rt 

rt 

0) 

o 

B 

CO 

• rH 
> 

rt 

HH 

HH 

*“5 

o o 

© • • 

. . in 

in 

• in 

© 

00  • 

00 

in  • 

© o • 

..  t^  04 

© . . 

• • (N 

CN 

• o 

© 

o • 

© 

o • 

© Cl  • 

.O  t-o 
ctf 

> • • 

*F  ! ! 

•CN 

(N  • >H 

*H  rH  • 

»H 

co  • 

C*}  rH  • 

.in  in 
• t>  ts. 


in  m 
in  co 
in  id 


© 

xt- 

CN 


t-  in 

CN  O • 

© in  in 

© • • 

• o o 

© • • 

• in  • 

CO  ID 

© r • 

*-H  rH  00 

© • • 

• 1>  04 

<o  • • 

• CN  • 

O co 

rH 

\J-  rH  • 

*-1  l 

H H 

CO  • • 

• rH 

<N  • • 

• CN  • 

in  10 

t>  rH 
40© 


04 


o -t 

'H 

40  O 

© 

•40 

pf  < 

b~  lO 

(N 

Tf  O 

xt- 

• rH 

u 

Ctf 

04  © 

© 

r» 

rH  rH 

<N 

• rH 

in  O 

rH  CO 
rH  CN 

r\ 


»n 

> 

CO 

*■"4 


© 04 

40  40  • 

40  • • 

• • • 

• O • 

© 

04  40 

CN  00 

"1  Cl  • 

CN  * • 

• • • 

• © • 

© 

o» 

CO  © 

rH 

O rH  • 

oF  ! 

*"H  • • 

• • 
• • 

• • • 

• • • 

• • • 

• rH  • 

"S 

40  CN 

40  »0 
^ CN 
CN  CN 


o 

xt- 

#s 


T3 

o 

J3 

cS 


O co 
00  00 
00  40 

#S 


CO 

© 

Xh 

CN 


40  © 
CN  © 
CO  ''tf 


o 

04 

K, 

"1 


rH  O 

H|  • • 

• • • 

• •© 

T3  O CN 

CN  • • 

• • • 

• • 00 

d r-^iH 

CN  • • 

• • • 

• • rH 

rH 

» . . 

*■*  . . 

; ; ! 

• • 

• • 

V)  © 
© © 
© rH 


in 

cn 

00 

"H 


H3 

o 

43 

C3 


© © 
CO  O 
Oi  Of 


© 


CN 


Co 


oo 

© • • 

• to  • 

40  • • 

. •© 

© • • 

• 04  40 

ON 

Is.  • • 

• CN  • 

Cl  • • 

• • CN 

CN  • • 

• © o 

rH  rH 

Cl  • • 

• rH  • 

*-H  • • 

• • 
• • 

• • rH 

• • 

• • 

*-H  • • 

• • 
• • 

• ^ o 

r i> 

. CN  r-t 

T3 

43 

cc 


r»  o 

oo  t> 
© in 


© 

CN 


CM 


Co 


O 


o 

ts. 

Xt- 


O 

© 


© 

© 


in 

00 


© 

00 


© © 
o>  1> 
o 

rs 

rH 


o 

ts. 

*H 

"S 


O 

43 

« 


co  in 

i— I 04 

Tf 

CN 


00 

© 

in 

CN 


OO  o 

CO  -<t  ts. 


© O 

rH  rH 
© © 


© 

<N 

"F 


T3 

o 

43 

a 


t>© 
in  in 
o © 


CN 

© 


CN 


CN 


O 00 

Oo  • • 

• 00  • 

Oo  • • 

• o 

© • • 

• 4o  in 

CO  CN 

If}  • • 

• ^ • 

> . . 

• • 00 

00  • • 

• t-  CN 

Xh  • • 

• rH  • 

• ♦ 

• • 

• • 

• • rH 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• oo  t> 

T3 

U 

43 

eS 


oo  in 

b-  t> 

in  i> 

#\ 


co 

© 

co 

cF 


in  o 

rH  rH 

in  Oi 


in 

CN 

xb 

"H 


O 

43 

rt 


T3 

U 

'42 

A 


© 

04  • • 

• • • 

• -o 

© 40  • 

40  40  • 

40 

in 

00  O 

oo  • • 

*H  1>  • 

Cs.  © • 

© 

o 

04  CN 

*‘1  # * 

^ i ; 

• • • 

• • • 

• • • 

. .40 

• • 

• • 

40 

rH  • 

*-H  rH 

CO  O 

CO  • • 

• •© 

© • in 

© . • 

• o o 

© O • 

© CN 

CQ  • . 

• • ^ 

© • © 

© • • 

• rH  © 

© • 

© ^ 
rH 

© • • 

cF  ; ; 

• • 

• • 

•CN 

Cl  • • 

• CN 

• 

• 

Cl 

•O  © 

• Xt- 


in  o 

ID  CO 


in 

O 4 

Xt- 


o © in 

in  oo  co 

"H 


UW  E-s  UW  h UW  En  UH  Eh  UW  Eh  OH  Eh  OH  Eh  oh  Eh  OH  Eh 


CO  O 

CO 

b~  00 

© 

i>o 

°0 

rH  rH 

cF 

t-  o 

ts. 

00  04 

WH 

40 

cFr-F 

CO 

in  in 

© 

o © 

© 

rH  CO 

Xh 

rH 

*-1 

OH 


X 

a 

JH 

S3 


cS 

*3 

r~* 

§ 

rt 


a 


a 


' ^>4 


8 


<D 


•s 

h 


lO 

<o  o 
1>X 

rH  C3 


n3 
O o 
1>X 
i— i cJ 


co 

<Ot3 

o 

rH  C3 


CN-a 
o o 

t-X 

rH  C3 


i— I rQ 


t-X 

rH  OJ 


05  03 
in  o 

^-9 

ih  rt 


C/D 

w 

o 

< 

i* 

o 

> 


00 

in -a 
t'-X 

rH  C3 


pH 

o 


b- 

in  o 
rH  c3 


PS 


PP 

§ 

s 

s 


in  o 
t-g 

i-h  a 


a 


t-X 

rH  Ctf 


cn  a 
in  o 

t-rQ 
■-I  rt 


CN 

jn^3 


oi  m 

rH  CO 


O CN 
CO  CN 


CO  i— I 
CN  CO 


© oo  oi 

(O^  HH 
1>  C4 


CN 

CNCN 


CN  ■ 


o> 


co  in 


ioa 

in  u i-h  <M 

»,Q 


> 

lo 


00 

CN 


o 


rH  C0  ^ 


CN  CN 


<o 


co 


oit? 

CO 


>*• 

lo 


o> 


• 1>  G5 

• CN  rH 


co 

> 


o 

> 


N»  • • 

• . . 

• CN  • 

CN  • • 

c*^  • • 

• • 

• • • 

• • • 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• • 

*h  in  oo 


rH 


■ in 


in  in  co 


. • co  co  co 


ICO 


^ -CN 


CN  CN  rH 


«H  • rH  *H  • CO  CO 


in  cn 

CN  CN 

^ • • 

• • • 

• • 

<N 


CN  CO 


00  *CO 


CO  rH  i— I 


(N  CO  rH 
CO 


Is*  »"H 

00 

<N  CN 

N- 

• • 

• 

• • 

CO 


<N 


•05 


05  CN  (N 


> co  ■ 

C0 


co 

> 


CN  i— i co 

^ • • 

• • rH 

• • 

> coco 

co  • • 

• CN  t" 

lO 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• CO  rH 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• 

05 

> 


CO 


rH  Ol 

loco 

O CN  rH 
O) 

3 

1 

• • • 

*H  • CN 

• 

• 

CN  • rH 

• 

• 

rH  rH 

CN  I-H  in 

<o  • • 
• • 
• • 

• ^ 

• CN  rH 

• 

CN  rH 

^ »n 

93 

1 

1 

CN  rH  • 
• 
• 

*H  • ’’f 

• 

• 

^ • • 
• • 

• • 

• • rH 

• • 

• • 

*H  rH  <N 

O}  • • 

• • 
• • 

. m 0 

• CN  rH 

• 

oo 

co 


co 

*H 


CN 


CN  CN  CN  tP  co  00  CO  *h 

*H 


co 

*H 


CO  CN 

in  rH  • 

*H  • rH 

*H  • • 

• t'r 

N.  CN  rH 

co  1>CN 

rH  CN 

CO  • 

• 

• • 

• • • 

• 

• 

rH 

• 

• 

• • 

• • • 

# 

* 

co  CO  CN  • CN  O 

CN  rH  CO 


N. 

co 


co 


rH  (N  CO 


ci 

■ c 

f J * 


|c»  : 

h(8  t 


cc 

i»  5 


Z r 
u ‘ 
» ’ 
4 ( 


50 

1)0 


K 


St 

>,fl 


ICIu 

it>,2 


'*S 


00 

IK)  U 


I Kg 

i H 5 


#)t 

1I)U 

t>£ 
H S 


it 

Du 

N£ 


H fi 


n— 

'flu 


N£ 

HG 


U«  hi  UW  h OH  h UW  h OH  h UW  h UH  h UW  h UH  h OH 


<u 


Ir 

T) 

• pH 

4-3 

00 

• H 

g 

XI 

a 

L 

O 

X 

C/3 

O 

1 

O 4) 
jlj  « 

S. 

G 

G 

n3 

>» 

45 

C0 

0 

C3 

u 

1 

d) 

C3 

41 

b 

U 

<V 

to 

■M 

3 

00 

4J 

CO 

cd 

CO  ^ 

a ^ 

Vh 

0 

(h 

4) 

*“5 

4-> 

+■> 

4-» 

o* 

CJ 

0 OJ 

VM 

3 

C 

O 

a 

0 

c 

0 

CO 

0 

• rH 
> 
0) 

0) 

4i 

45 

£ 

4) 

s 

2 

55 

55 

55 

55 

CJ 

•8 


TJ 

o 

43 

53 


Tp  05 

to 

• to 

to 

o 00 

© 

• rH 

*H 

05  Tp 
i-H 

to 

CM 

• rH 

*H 

05  00 

O 

OO 

O 

O to 

s. 

to  co 

00 

CO  05 
i-H 

cm 

CM 

05 

CM 

• • 

• to 

to 

• • 

• to 

to 

• • 

• 

00  to 

to 

• 

• 

• • 

• Tp 

• • 

• b- 

• • 

• 

t—  C0 

*-< 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

• • 

• to 

to 

• • 

• 

"H  CM 

^P 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

• • 

• • 

• 

• * 

• 

CM 

CM 

* 

• 

• 

•O 

o 

# # 

# 

• o 

O 

o o 

© 

# • 

CM  O 

CM 

• t- 

N. 

• • 

• 

• CM 

CM 

00  00 

co 

• • 

• 

00  fH 

© 

• 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

• CM 

CM 

CM  CO 

to 

• • 

• 

00  O 

to 

• 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

««  #N 

fH  rH 

CM 

• 

• 

* 

• • 

* 

• • 

• 

* 

T3 

o 


© in 
in  in 
©cm 


CM~ 


T3 

a 


r-  oo 

to  to  o 

to 

05  i-H 

*H  Cl  00 

i-H  <o 
CM -T 

00  I-H 

to 

CM 

CO  CO 

© o o 

© 

o b- 

b*  Tp  to 

© 

00  rH 

#N  #N 

i-h  CM 

© CM 

to 

to  00 

CO  • • 

O CO 

• • 

b-  to 

©0  • • 

^ • • 

’H  . . 

o 


o 


o 

u 


• to  to 

• r-  t- 


o -o  © 

rp  -Tj-  > 

• i-H  *H 


• CM 

• to 


CM 

to 


• o o 

• CM  CM 


ON 

ON 


b- 


to  in 
Tp  \P 


o o 

© • ♦ 

• co  <o 

© . • 

o © 

© • • 

• i-H  l— 

Oo  • • 

I-H  CM 

co  • • 

• to  co 

*H  • • 

rH 

I ! 

* rH 

<n  : : 

oo 

© • • 

• CM  CM 

M- 

• to 

o o 

© • • 

• t>  00 

to 

• to 

!— i to 

ts.  • • 

. rH  to 

# #«• 
rH 

to  • CM 

»H 

• 

to  co 

*H  • • 

• O 00 

to 

• o 

CO  b- 

’-H  • • 

• © co 

CM 

• co 

rH 

CM  • • 

. ON 

* i-H 

to 

» . 

• to 

to  o • 

© OO 

© • • 

• b- 

N.  Tp  • 

■Cp  r-H  CM 

CO  • • 

•CM 

CM  • 

• 

CM  CO 

to  • • 

rH  fH 

CM  O • 

© • • 

• -o 

© • • 

© 

CO  o 

©^  • • 

• 

1C)  i-H 

co  co  • 

Co  • . 

• -o 

© • • 

© 

© co 

CM  • • 

• 

ooi 

rH 

© 

» • 
'H 

• • 

• • 

• • rH 

• • 

• • 

*s  • • 

CM 

00  CM 

• • 

^ I I 

• 

• 

>T3 

‘ rO 


>h  c n 
Hp  o 

© oo 


> 

K 


© • 

© • • 

rH  • 

*H  • • 

• • • 

• • • 

• CO  • 

HP  • 

> 

• 

• o 

© toO 

to 

O to 

to  • • 

•CM 

CM  t-  CO 

to 

Hp  Tp 

oo  • • 

• CM 

CM  i-h 

CM 

CO  i-H 

> . . 

'd 

V 

43 

cs 


■j-d 

■5  O 

-43 

H 53 


O fH 

*H 

to  <m 

to  to 

© 

*H 

CO  CO 

CM 

CM  rH 

'cp 

Hp  t> 

*H 

»H 

00  CM 

© 

rp  t> 

CM 

to  © 

to 

*H 

O 

m 


© 

to 


• • 

• 

• o 

© 

• • 

• 

to  oo 

to 

to  o 

to 

• o 

© 

to  O 

to 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

• CO 

co 

• • 

• 

HP  Tp 

© 

j>  © 

co 

• t- 

co  Hp 

© 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

l-H  rH 

CM 

CM 

to 

TP 

to 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

• • 

• 

• 

• 

•o 

© 

• 

• • 

• 

to  CM 

N. 

• O 

© 

to  O 

to 

I-H  O 

*H 

. 

. 

•o 

© 

• • 

• 

• • 

• 

CO  I-H 

> 

• © 

© 

to  CM 

N- 

CO  © 

to 

• 

• 

• i-H 

*H 

• 

• • 

• 

rH 

• co 

co 

t- 

oo 

• 

• 

• 

• • 

• • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• • 

• • 

* 

• 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

• o 

© 

• o 

© 

• to 

to 

• 00 

oo 

CM  • 

CM 

to  to 

© 

• 

. 

• • 

• 

•co 

co 

•co 

co 

• © 

© 

. © 

© 

CO  • 

to 

O co 

N- 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• CM 

CM 

CM  CO 

oo 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

• 

# 

• 

rH 

• • 

• 

• 

* 

* 

* 

T) 

o 


-40 
h G 


to  CO 
CO  © 
O 00 


00 

to 

© 


• o 

© . • 

• to  O 

to 

• o 

© o to 

to  co  © 

co  • • 

• © 
• 

• 

• 

© • • 
• • 

• • 

• • 

• CO  CM 

• rH 

• 

• 

to 

to 

• o 
. 00 

© in  i-h 
oo 

to  to  Tp 

o 

CM 

© • • 

© • • 

a?  : : 

OnQ 
O O 

'•9 

-t  G 


CO  O 

Tf  O 
I— I t— 


co 

*H 

© 


•O  O 
• vo 


OO  © 
to  05  to 


to 

• o 

t> 


to 

o 

ts. 


to  to  O 
to  to  to 
*h 


to  o 

05  Hp 
to 


to 

to 

b- 


M 

00  o 

00  • • 

n rrH 

t-(M 

© • . 

> U 

^P  i-H 

lo  . . 

H 

'w' 

O CO 
to  co 


to 

oo 

•*) 


UW  h UH  Eh  OH  Eh  OH  Eh  OH  Eh  OH  Eh  OH  Eh  OH  Eh  UH  Eh  OH  Eh 


T3 

g 

C3 

u 

c3 

s 


u 

I 

0) 


s 


G 

0) 

tn 


s 


53 

(H 

u 

4) 

</3 


G 


o 


<u 

5-1 

o 

43 

CO 

o 

-t-> 

’3 

© 

CO 

o 

s 


CO 

■£ 

4) 

£ 


CO 

53 

y 

£ 

4) 


CJ  D 

£0 

2 


T3 

G 

53 

-d 

G 

G 

O 


45 


>» 

4) 

CO 

>H 

45 

*“5 

£ 

<D 

£ 


a 

8 


• HHk 

-K, 


<D 


X! 

<73 

H 


C/D 

w 

o 

< 

>* 

o 

> 


fa 

o 


P5 

fa 

PQ 


o 

55 


1765 
(abc  ) 

5 

6 

*H  V5  <0 

*H 

»H  H?  tO 
CO  W5 

O O CO 
05  rH 

Co  • rH 1 

*H 

*h  • • 

• 1>  CO 

• CO  co 

70 

• CO  pH 

N.  • rH 

• 

• 

1764 
( abed ) 

7 

6 

Co  (OOi 
*H  »H 

CO  O 00 

CM  co  to 

118 

5 

1 

co  • • 

! I 

• I"  CO 

• CM  50 

80 

• 'cfCM 

CO  • rH 

• 

• 

1763 
(acd  ) 

4 

3 

t>»  rf  to 

O 00  CM 

H co  co 

110 

3 

4 

N.  • • 

• pH  pH 

CM  o O 
CM  CM 

40 

1 

H co  co 

05  • CM 

• 

1762 
( abed ) 

9 

13 

CM  ^ CM 

CM  pH  rH 

CO  00  b- 

CM  cO  co 

125 

13 

4 

17 

! ! ! 

• CO  o 

. Tj<  to 

• 

103 

2 

CM  iO  co 

• • 
• • 
• • 

1761 
) (abed) 

5 

4 

05  00  CO 

> 00  to 

*H  CO  CO 

'cf  CM  CO 
05 

CO  • pH 

*H  >H  • 

»H  05  O 
CM  O 

89 

’ i 

*H  CO  CO 
CM 

CM  • • 

CO  • • 

• • 

1760 
) ( ad 

1 

3 

> «5 

05  oo 
CO  CM 

OS 

• pH  • 

H • * 

• • 
• • 

• CO 

• CM 

• 

. . 
CM  • • 

• CM  • 

• • 

• • 

CM  • • 

• • 
• • 

1759 

(abed 

4 

2 

<o  O 00 

pH 

00  i co 

*H  rf  C0 

74 

7 

s.  • CM 

CM  • • 

• • 
• • 

• pH 

62 

1 

*H  • • 

• • • 

• • • 

1758 
(abd  ) 

1 

• • • 

*H  i— i CM 

pH  pH 

CO  O CM 
CM  CMh* 

62 

12 
• • • 

12 

6 

CO  • I-H 

*h  t-00 
1-1  CM 

45 

1 

*H  • • 

• • • 

• • • 

1757 
(abc  ) 

1 

1 

CM  » b* 

'CJ-  'tf  05 

H pH  co 

53 

• CO  CO 

• 

to  • • 

• CO  50 

• CM  CM 

48 

7 

N.  • • 

• • • 

• • • 

1756 
( abed ) 

* *i 

*H  b*  CM 
r-i  CM 

05  ^05 

CO  ^ CO 

113 

. cw 
• 

CO  • • 

• O CO 

• CO  CM 

56 

3 

eo  • • 
• • 
• • 

• • • 

• • • 

1755 
) (abed) 

1 

>H  00  If) 
pH 

CO  O 00 

CM  CO  CO 

118 

16 

CO  CO'tf 
H 

u • • 

• CO  o 

• CM  co 

CO  CO  • 
50 

eo  • • 

• • • 

• • • 

1754 

abed 

5 

7 

CM  O ^h 

*H  HH 

N.  Tf  co 

cm  ^ co 

102 

7 

• • • 

• pH 

*H  • • 

. to  CO 

• co  co 

72 

3 

CO  • . 

• • 

• • • 

• • • 

• • • 

t-JO 
C3 


CM 

i2'« 


CO  T3  50  CM 
»o  o “ ’ 


*h 


b-  rH 

"-H  CM 


00 

CO 


CO  co 
»0  ID 


CM  CM 

H 

H 


CM 


05  50 
CO  ^ 


> 

00 


CM 


CM  tJ1  VO 


05  50  05 

CO 


^ CO 
> 


CO 


o ^ > 
<M 


<a 

o 

G 

V 

03 


> 

o 

t-H 

Ph 


J4 

Ih 

O 

>< 


£ 

05 

£ 


£ 

05 

£ 


d 

#G 

>» 

O 

d 

3 

u 

+J 

IS 

a 

o 

G 

a 

K 

O 

*G 

■M 

Ih 

o 

C/2 

CtJ 

> 

o 

u 

o 

< 

A 

+■> 

13 

T9 

Ct! 

d 

{50 

G 

o 

C5 

JO 

05 

• pH 

O 

Ih 

O 

O 

O 

a 

CL) 

33 

O 

G 

V 

fc 

O 

Ph 

Ph 

Ph 

O’ 

C/2 

c* 

if,® 


t ir,: 
iff; 
«« 


«« 


, r:l 

(Nr 


C- 

Ci 


Itc 

19 


' ifC 
«« 


e: 

■it 


c 

ia  «! 


b ct 
a or 
: or. 


UH  Eh  UW  h UW  Eh  UH  Eh  UH  Eh  UW  Eh  U Hh  UW  Eh  UW  Eh  UW 


t 


1 


! 


> 

! 

I 


) 

) 

> 

J 


3 

; 

3 

t 


3 

i 

: 

S 


3 

J 

3 

<3 


3 

h 


© io 

»o 

vo  00 

CO 

VO  iH 

ICO 

O »0 

»o 

• O 

o 

VO  00 

CO 

O CO 

N. 

05  CO 

CN 

C0  pH 

''F 

• 

N. 

rH  rH 

Co 

CN  H 

co 

pF  vo 

o 

CO  <H 

FF 

* 

-C  (N 

• 

in  o 

vo 

pF  05 

co 

pH  O 

♦H 

O vo 

in 

, # 

50  CO 

00 

pH  <N 

ff 

00  to 

> 

pH  CO 

pcF 

CN  CN 

FF 

t-  (N 

05 

VO  to 

(N 

CN 

CN 

CN  CN 

VO 

CO  VO 

L_00 

CO  vo 

00 

05  If) 

O b- 

rH  rH 

CN 

00  00 

CO 

co  o 

pH  05 

O 

rH  rH 

CN 

-H  (N 

FF 

vq  ,-h 

CO 

rH 

CN 

• • 

<N  CN 

> 

CO  o 

CO 

O CO 

ICO 

>-H  r-H 

CN 

O C0 

co 

, # 

tf 

»H 

05  CO 

CN 

05  to 

»o 

vo  05 

> 

• • 

CN  tF 

K 

b-  vo 

CO 

00  IT) 

> 

CO 

N. 

* • 

PH 

CN  CN 

VO 

• • 

O »-H 

*H 

vo  o 

vo 

PF  05 

co 

o o 

O 

• o 

O 

VO  Tf 

o 

05  pF 

Co 

t'-  co 

*H 

CN  pH 

CO 

• vo 

*o 

rH  rH 

CO 

CN  pH 

FF 

C^CN 

o 

rH  rH 

CN 

* 

>H  (N 

> 

• 

vo  o 

»o 

O vo 

vo 

00  O 

L?° 

# # 

o • 

o 

pF  CN 

CO 

co  »0 

00 

O 00 

00 

• • 

vo  • 

vo 

rH 

PH 

rH  rH 

CN 

rH  00 

05 

• • 

• 

rH 

PH 

• • 

• 

CO  O 

Co 

C0  CO 

co 

VO  co 

00 

co  • 

CO 

* o 

o 

pF  00 

CN 

CO  tF 

o 

CN  vo 

CN  • 

CN 

• 05 

05 

rH 

CN 

CO  CN 

co 

t>  rH 

C50 

CN  • 

CN 

»— 1 rH 

CN 

• 

VO  • 

vo 

■H  VO 

co 

co  co 

co 

O • 

O 

vo  • 

vo 

rH  • 

pF  CO 

1>  05 

co 

o • 

o 

rH  • 

»H 

pF  tF 

oo 

co  hF 

PH 

vo  • 

«o 

CO  • 

co 

rH 

CN 

• 

VO  o 

»o 

VO  vo 

o 

vo  o 

VO 

. . 

VO  O 

vo 

CN  tF 

Co 

oo  05 

oo 

O 05 

05 

• • 

co  00 

rH  rH 

co 

co  (N 

°0 

• • 

-H  CN 

FF 

rH 

PH 

• o 

o 

vo  vo 

o 

CO  co 

05 

OO 

o 

• vo 

vo 

O CO 

FF 

pF  tF 

00 

• • 

00  co 

PH 

vo  00 

co 

CO  tF 

O 

• • 

(N 

FF 

PH 

pH  (N 

'CF 

• • 

o • 

o 

05  05 

oo 

05  00 

K 

CN  • 

(N 

vo  CO 

Co 

vo  • 

VO 

vo  CO 

'CF 

o 

oo 

rH  • 

O 05 

05 

iH  CO 

VO 

tF  rH 

vo 

to  • 

co 

rH  rH 

CN 

CN  CN 

> 

• 

o »o 

vo 

VO  O 

vo 

CO  (N 

Vo 

rH  • 

PH 

• o 

o 

CO  pF 

o 

rH  If} 

co 

CO  00 

pF  • 

FF 

• VO 

vo 

CN  CO 

CO 

vo  CN 

N. 

00  pH 

q 

CN  • 

CN 

• 

-I  CN 

• 

• 

o o 

o 

05  VO 

FF 

1^0 

O • 

O 

pF  CO 

CN  CN 

»o 

05  (N 

»H 

I>  • 

• • 

• 

CN  vo 

K. 

VO  vo 

o 

o o 

• 

• • 

• 

»H 

CN  (N 

\F 

• 

• • 

• 

• »o 

vo 

CO  vo 

00 

O Vf5 

VO 

o • 

o 

. . 

. 

• O 

o 

05  CO 

CN 

o o 

N. 

vo  • 

VO 

• • 

• 

• rH 

PH 

rH 

CN 

CN  co 

»o 

rH  • 

*H 

• • 

• 

rH 

PH 

• 

• • 

• 

• 

UW 

Eh 

UW 

E^ 

uw 

Eh* 

UW 

Eh 

UW 

Eh 

© CN  CN 

-«F  pH  LO 


■o 

•hf 


o 

FF 


UW  Eh 


vo  »o 

rH  CO 

<N  00 


o 

VO 

o 


CN  rH 


FF 


00  © 
rH  l>- 

ION 

ph  oT 


00 

00 

Oj. 

ff 


o o 

O rH 

05  o> 


© 

PH 

00 


hF  CN 

co  o» 

05  b- 

rH  CT 


<e 

vo 

ts. 

FF 


in  in 

b-  05 

in  o 

pH  CN 


o 

»o 

0* 

FF 


ID  »0 
O b~ 
CN  O 

r» 


O 

oo 

CN 

r* 


in  in 

ID  pH 

00  pH 

r\ 

CN 


© 

00 

(N 


in  © 

ID  05 
00  CO 


*o 

<N 

CN 


o in 

©hF 

rH  O 

e-  rv 


»C 

ff 

(N 


O CM 
hF  Hf 
CO  >H 


CM 

00 

FF 

CN 


hF  CN 
O 05 
05  CN 


CO 

05 

PH 

#N 

CN 


vo  o 

pF  CO 

in  in 


in 

o 

CP 

C0 


b-  IH 

o vo 

b~  05 


oo 

in 

CO 

CO 


CN  50 
00  Os 
Tj.  tO 


K 

N. 

PH 


UH  Eh 


. . 

• VO  O 

vo  •© 

• • 

• oo  in 

co  • hF 

CN 

co 

• O vo 

vo  •© 

• • 

• b-  b- 

ptF  • -pF 

• • 

• pH 

CN 

VO  • 

> n vo  o 

vo  -O 

VO  • 

>0  PFO 

pH  CO 

"F  -O 

"PF  • pH 

00  • 

00  co  co 

CO  • • 

rH  • 

PH  O hF 

FF  • • 

rH  • 

ph  CN  CN 

FF 

• VO 

»o  CO  o 

Co  • • 

• co 

CO  05  CO 

rH  Tf 
rH 

CN  • • 

Co  • • 

p . . 

^ . . 

# 

. in  • 

in  • • 

• • 

. O . 

© • • 

• rH  • 

PH  • • 

• • 

• • 

• # 

* # 

o • 

o • • 

• • • 

hF  • 

ptF  • • 

• • • 

• • • 

vo  • 

v*0  • • 

• • • 

HF  • 

FF 

• • • 

• • • 

vo  • 

lO  • • 

• • • 

CN  • 

CN  • • 

• • • 

CO  • 

CO 

• • 

I I ! 

vo  • 

Vo  • • 

• • • 

rH  • 

»H  • • 

• • • 

rH  • 

PH  • • 

• • • 

• • • 

o • 

o • • 

• • • 

CN  • 

<N  • • 

• • • 

CN  • 

CN  • • 

• • • 

• • • 

• • • 

O • 

O • • 

• • • 

co  • 

CO  • • 

• • • 

pH  • 

PH 

• • • 

• • • 

UW  Eh  UW  Eh  UW  Eh 


V 

o 

c 


V 


T3 

'> 

o 

*H 


Ph 


£ 

z 


M 

(H 

o 

>* 

£ 

05 

5? 


& 

c 

•Jh 

O 

5 

H 

a 

o 

U 

u 

co 

r3 

-H 

CtJ 

(H 

> 

O 

o 

S5 

£ 

o 


u 

o 

Oh 


O 


o 

£> 

6 

< 

*3 

(h 

CJ 

Ph 


a 

3 

cu 

’3 

T3 

05 

*— H 

• fH 

r3 

Ph 


73 

&c 

3 

-M 

U 

o 

Ph 


o 

05 

rO 

05 

3 

O' 


M 

'o 

Jh 

U 


C/3 


100 


Vi 

a 

8 

• 04 

Q) 

Vi 


<D 


w 


■s 

h 


P 

& 


IO 

to  o 
l>42 

i-<  CS 


tO  U 

i— ( rt 


co 

to  n3 
t-  o 
»h  a 


CN'O 
«o  o 
»-Q 
r-t  m 


i— I rQ 

to  O 

1>^3 
r-l  03 


O 

tO'tf 

3 


05  T) 
to  o 

»•£ 

r-f  3 


CO 

W 

O 

2 

O 

> 


00 

tOT3 

t'-X) 

i— ( 3 


pH 

o 


to  o 

»H  c3 


tO  03 
in  o 

i-g 

i— I C3 


to  03 

to  o 

i— ( 3 


l>^3 

a 


co  ho 
to  o 
1>J0 
>-l  3 


CM 

tO-^ 


b.  HH 

CM  • CM 

CM  • CN 

CM  • CM 

CM  • • 

• (N  • 

CN  • CN 

CM  CO  b» 

* 

* 

* * 

• • 

• pH 

*-< 

* 

to  l>  O) 

*N 


I to 


to  CO  CO 


to 


CO 


t>.  to  i— I 


to 


> to  to 


^ i>  CM 


05 


to 


to  to  CM 


oo 


O to 


to 


CM 


co 


to  CM 


co 

"H 


cm 


Co 


tJi  rQ  • CO 

to  o 


CM  • CO 
• CM 


CO 

Cl 


• Os 


Os  • (N 

’-i 


<M 


1 co 

CM 


CO 

CM 


■ co 


Co 


■ to 


to 


co  • CM 


CM  to  O 


CO  i 


<M 


CM  ON 
CM 


O to 


to 

"H 


to  Tf 


*~l  to  Tf 


o 


"tf  co 


K 


CM 


to 


•05 


05  CO 


CM 


-H  (M 

co  . • 

. . 

. • 

• . . 

"i  to  co 

CO  05  to 

> . . 
. . 

; ’CM 

<M  • • 

• • 

• • 

• CM 
• • 

CM  • • 

. . <o 

• • pH 

• • 

<C  loo 

»"H 

• CM  to 

• 

OO  • 

*1  • to 

• 

to  • • 
• • 
• • 

• • iH 

• • 

• • 

• • 00 

• • 

00  10  05 

pH 

• CM  • 

• • 

• • 

cm  • • 

• • • 

• • • 

• • • 

. .rf 

M-  • • 

• CM  i-t 

h OH 

E-<  dw 

h UH 

h OH 

h OH 

dw 

h dw 

h dw 

00 


CM 


> 

CM 


Co 


to  i— I 

CM 


> 

CM 


N. 

CM 


05  • IO 


uw 


? c 


r,_ 


co 

0 

W 


c/3 


X 

4J 

C/3 


u 

a 

o 

0 

►J 


00 

3 

£ 

O 

h 


00 

<D 


CJ 

hr. 

0 


c n 


C/3 


C/3 


C/3 


> 

-M 

C/3 


J-i 

o 

h 


o 

— 

3 

U 


03 

C/3 


3 

o 

C/3 


<h 

3 

C/3 


(abed)  ( abed ) (abcd)"7abcc^7aDC  T(a— r 


o vo 

05  tC 

<N 


b- 

co 

co 


00 

00 


CO 

tH 

HP 


<N 
' vo 
Cl 


• VO 
■Cl 


• VO 
■ Cl 


vo 

O vo 

co 

loco 

M- 

*o 

00  o 

co 

CO  o 

CO 

rH  i— 1 

tH 

CO  o 

Co 

00  co 

CO 

CM 

oo 

vo  vo 

oo 

05  tH 

*H 

CO  CM 

CO 

CO  CM 

tv. 

HP  CO 

> 

CO  CM 

Cl 

vo  vo 

»o 

Cl  pH 

Cl 

CO  pH 

• 

00  o 

• 

VO  -p 

vo  <M 

• 

# 

vo  vo 

• 

pH  1> 

• 

vo 

* 

O 00 

• 

CO  05 

• 

tH 

• 

# 

VO  O 

• 

Cl  Tp 

• 

CM 

• 

vo 

VO  O 

Cl 

vo  <M 

pH 

»o 

-vp  VO 

Cl 

Tp  VO 

PH 

00  vo 

»o 

00 


00 

CO 

Cl 


co 

»H 

co 


o 

Ph 

vo 


»o 

tH 

lO 


o 

> 

M- 


oo 

O 

05 


o 

05 

VO 


oo 

Cl 

oo 


VC 

vo 

CM 


O 

05 


O 

05 

PH 


»0  irj 


o 

VO 


O 

VO 


t- 

b- 


Ch 

N. 


05 

O 

> 


0 o 

1 VO 


2° 

Hp  *>. 


o 

PH 

*H 


vo 

'Tp 

Cl 


vo 

■O 


>o 

'vp 

Cl 


VO 

o 

vs 


vo  VO 

VO  «o 


•o 

Cl 


O 

CM 

»H 


■O  O 
VO  Vo 


00 

vo 


o 

vo 


o o 

VO  vo 


• o 
•o 

CO 


o 

o 

co 


• vo 

' 05 


• o 

• <o 


CN 

■ 05 


• . 

• • • 

. . 1T5 

• • 

• • • 

• • rH 

• • 

• • • 

•CM 

*o 

05 

»H 


o 

vo 

PH 


05 

*H 


*o 

*H 

Cl 


•o 

b- 


o o 

' VO  vo 


' VO 
•VO 
Cl 


«o 

*o 

Cl 


o 

VO 

Cl 


o 

»o 

Cl 


o 

00 


o 

Co 


•VO  VO 
• CO  co 


• o p 

• vo  10 


• . 

• • . 

• • o 

• • 

• • • 

. . TP 

• • 

• • • 

* * 

* * 

• • 

• • • 

• • 

o 

M- 


o 

PH 

'vp 


1 VO  *0 
1 Tp  ^P 


o 

00 


o 

oo 


' co 


o 

PH 

Co 


' co 

' b- 


PH 

CO 

IN. 


VO  vo 

O t" 

h-  »H 


O vo 

CO  b- 
C1  ^ 


O CO 

vo  vo 

CO  >"H 


OO  VO 

00  PH 


i>o 

Cl 


vo  O 
O Tp 
00  Cl 


VO  vo 
CO  CN 
CO  PH 


vo  Cl 

00  o 

-H  CM 


o 

oo 

oo 


vo 

o 

'VI- 


CO 

*H 

lo 


co 

o 

co 


Cl 

tH 

Cl 


Vo 

vp 

o 


o 

vo 

'vp 


oo 

oo 

co 


»H 

»o  o 

»o 

o o 

o 

oo 

CM  O 

Cl 

05  CO 

CM 

vo 

vo  CO 

oo 

VO  vo 

Cl 

<H 

o 

O Tp 

'VP 

vo  vo 

o 

Vo 

00  00 

vo 

CO  tH 

PH 

*H 

TP  "Vp 

rH 

05 

PH 

CM 

co 

CM  vo 

tH 

• o 

o 

pH  O 

•HP 

^p 

• 

ow 

rH 

vo 

PH 

• vo 

vo 

o 

o o 

o 

• CM 

ei 

tH 

CM  CO 

Vo 

• 05 

05 

PH 

05  CO 

CM 

r* 

PH 

• 05 

05 

Cl 

■o 

1> 


»o 

• VO 

CM 


Cl 

o 

u 


Vo 

vo 

Cl 


• vo  Vo 

•CO  CO 


• 

• 

• 

Vo  o 

vo 

•o 

lo 

•co 

Co 

• . 

• 

•o 

o 

• • 

• 

• 

• 

05  VO 

■vp 

•o 

o 

> 

• • 

• 

•o 

o 

• • 

• 

• 

• 

CM 

co 

• co 

Co 

•CM 

Cl 

• • 

• 

• CO 

CO 

• • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

vo  • 

|Vp 

• 

• 

• 

00  • 

oo 

• 

• 

• 

rH  • 

PH 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

vo 

o 

Cl 


•o 

'Hp 

•Tf 


© 


oo 

oo 

05  Hp 


oo 

CO  CM 


o 

o 

co 


o 

»o 

*H 


UW  Eh  UW  Eh  uw  Eh  UW  Eh  OW  Eh  U W Eh  V H Eh  OH  Eh  OW  Eh  OW  Eh 


05 

0 

w 


C/3 


05 


KJ* 


d 

o 

p 


•S 

*4J 

3 

s 


C/3 


C/3 


C/3 


o 

43 

H 


C/3 


05 

<L> 

5 


C/3 


C/3 


cl 

be 

P 

+-> 

u 

o 

h 

*03 

C/3 


el 

c 

"o 

H 

d 

O 

43 

+■< 

3 

O 

C/3 


g 

P 

C/3 


a 

8 


T** 

Ho 


8 


<L> 


rt 

H 


xo 

to  o 
t-x> 

rH  OS 


'Tf  no 
to  u 
»-Q 

ft  Ctf 


& 

W 

O 

<! 

>< 

O 

> 


o 


an 

<0^3 
l>  o 

I H tf 


CMo3 
to  o 
J>wO 
t-t  as 


ft  pq 

to  o 
1^.0 
rH  C3 


O 

<0*0 
I>  CJ 


ox  rd 

vo  O 

t--2 

rH  Gtf 


00 

1003 

»XI 

rH  (3 


r- 

»o  o 

iH  (3 


w 

PQ 


to'd 
XO  o 

■H  as 


£ 


xo  T3 

xo  o 

rH  C3 


• • 

• rH  CO 

> • • 

• • 

• 

ft  'H 


XO 

to 


to 

to 


• • 

• pH  • 

*H  • • 

• • 

• • 

CM  Tf  00 


CM 

*H 


CO 

CO 


CO 

CO 


Os  CM 


*H 

<M 


tN 


00  CM 


O 

CM 


co 

co 


co 

CO 


CM  Tf 


to 

*H 


■ in 


uo  ox  to 


in 

cm 


• oo 

• o 

• ft 


00 

o 

*H 


03 

C 


i » 

03 

G 

cs 


03 

T3 

C 

rt 


cS 
4 3 
03 

G 

as 

£ 

C/3 


V 

tg 

'C 

£ 

s 

X2 

Q 

ctf 

09 

HH 

G 

03 

0 

03 

ft 

+■> 

bo 

t . 

03 

o 

o 

9 

PH 

h 

h 

h 

H 

> 

T3 

G 


£ 

03 


bn 

Jh 


. . 

. 

• pH 

*H  • • 

In. 

CO  rH 

> 

• 

• 

• 

CM 

• 

CM 

• 

• 

• 

• pH 

• • 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

• * 

• 

>-1  CM 

CO 

• 

• 

• 

CM 

• 

CM 

• 

• 

• 

. 

• • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

. 

• • 

• 

pH  • 

*H  • • 

co 

OO 

O 

• 

to 

to 

pH 

• 

*H 

• • 

• • 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

• • 

• • 

CM  rH 

CO 

• 

• 

• 

to 

• 

to 

• 

* * 

• • 

• 

• 

• • 

• pH 

*H 

• pH 

*S  • • 

>o 

b-  tO 

CO 

• 

co 

co 

pH 

• 

*H 

• • 

• 

• 

pH  pH 

CO 

• 

• 

• 

• 

tN 

• 

• • 

• 

• 

• 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• rH  • 

*H 

• pH 

*h  • CM 

CM 

CM  rH 

co 

• 

CO 

oo 

• 

• • 

• • 

• 

• • 

• • 

• 

• 

CM  CO 

XO 

• 

• 

• 

xo 

• 

*o 

• 

• 

• 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• • 

■"C 

Du 


>i  a 


0O 

[>a 


• • 

• CM  CO 

in  • • 

• co  • 

5 

3 

CO  o co 

CM  • • 

. CO  • 

00  • ♦ 

• • • 

• • 

• 

• • 

• • 

• 

pH 

CM  • • 

• 00  • 

oo  • • 

• • • 

• • 

• 

• • 

* * 

* 

* * 

* * 

* * 

• • • 

M 

« u 


H 


«)0 


rt  8 


Du 

l»n 


CO 

I!)  U 


H S 


DO 
Du 
h: 
n a 


rf  03  • CM 

CM  • >H 

*H  • ft 

*H  • • 

• • pH 

*h  ^ xn 

Oi  • pH 

*H  ^ • 

> CM  • 

CM  • • 

xo  o 

J3 
rH  OS 

CO  H * CM 

• 

• 

CM  • • 

• 

• 

• CM  • 

<M  • • 

• • 

• • 

pH 

• C0  Tf 

*"H 

ts»  • pH 

o • 

pH  • 
pH  • 

O 

»H  • 

tH  • • 

• • 
• * 

• rH  • 

m o 

rH  CS 

CM  /""S  ‘CM 

CM  • • 

• pH  • 

*H  • • 

CM 

03  • • 

o • 

pH  • 

. o>  • 

o • • 

»H  • • 

03  • • 

* * 

• • 

• • pH 

: 

pH 

'w' 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• CM  • 

CM  • * 

• • 

• • 

UH 

h uw 

Fh  uw 

f-h  oh 

Fh  oh 

Fh  OH 

Eh  UH 

Fh  OH 

Fh  OH 

Fh  OH 

(abed)  (abed)  (abed)  (abed)  (abc  ) (abd  ) (abed)  ( ad  ) (abed)  (abed)  (acd  ) (abed)  (abc 


, • 

• **C 

i n • • 

• • 

• • rH 

*H  • • 

• • 

• • rH 

*H  • • 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• • 

. lo  • 

in  • • 

• • 

• rH  • 

H • • 

• • 

• rH  • 

*H  • • 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• * 

• • 

• o 

o •© 

o • • 

• 00 

00  • lo 

• 

• 

IfJ  • • 

• • 
• • 

• • 

• • • 

. o • 

• • 

• • • 

. ho  • 

• • 

• • • 

• • 

• • • 

• • 

• • • 

I # 

• oo 

o • • 

• • 

• C0  Hjt 

ts  • • 

• • 

• rH 

• 

• 

*H  . • 

in  in 

o 

»n  »n 

o 

<N  Tf 

ts 

in  oo 

co 

cn 

03  03 

03 

9* 

•o 

o 

CN  03 

• o 

o 

cn  o 

• CO 

cn 

O t* 

• 

rH 

*H 

o in 

in 

in 

Oi 

<N  03 

*H 

o t- 

ts 

rH 

<N 

o HO 

rH 

VO 

H 

o 

•o 

O 

OO 

o 

in 

• rH 

*H 

cn 

ts 

• iH 

*H 

O rH 

r«  r* 

rH  rH 

*H 

CN 

• I> 

ts 

O »"H 

*H 

• HO 

VO 

in  t- 

<N 

• 

• 

• f-H 

cn  cn 

ts 

03  • 

03  • • 

. • in 

00  • 

oo  • • 

. . O 

HO  • 

• • 

• • 

rH 

H . . 

• 

rH  • 

h o • 

o • • 

o • 

T*  . 

h*  * 

O t-  • 
> : 

ts  • • 

• • 
• • 
• • 

O • 

o o • 

o • • 

rH  • 
• 

*«  ! 

*h  in  • 
in 

»o  : 

l o • • 

• • 
• • 
• • 

cn  • 

cn  • • 

• • • 

h~  • 

ts  • • 

• • • 

in  • 

in  • • 

• • • 

« ! 

cn 

¥ • • 

• • • 

• • • 

o>  • 

03  • • 

• • • 

cn  • 

cn  • • 

• • • 

00  • 

CQ  • • 

• • • 

« : 

cn 

• • • 

• • • 

• • • 

• • 

• o • 

o • • 

• • • 

. .in 

in  >-h  in 

HO  • • 

• • 

ts  . • 

• . • 

• • 

• • 

• in  • 

• • 

• • 

• • 

io  • • 

• • 
• • 
• • 

• • • 

• • • 

• • • 

• • • 

• • t> 

ts  rH  rH 

rH  cn 

<N  • • 

• • 

• 00  • 

. O • 

: cn  : 

oo  • • 

o • • 

<n  : : 

• • • 

• • • 

• • • 

• • 

• oo 

o • • 

. o • 

o • »n 

in  oo  cn 

• • 

• h-  • 

ts  . • 

• • • 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• o m 

• rH  rH 

• 

• 

in  • • 

CN  • • 

• • 
• • 

. HO  • 

• • 

• • 

• • 

ho  • rf 

• rH 

• 

• 

> O 03 

*h  cn  cn 

o • • 

ts  • • 

• 03  • 

• 03  • 

: ^ : 

03  • • 

03  • • 

\F  * * 

• • • 

• • • 

• • • 

o 


00  03 

ts 

• • 

• • 

cn 

• . 

• 

• • 

t*  in 

O 

• • 

• lo  • 

in 

• • 

• 

• • 

in  ^ 

O 

• • 

• lo  • 

in 

• • 

• 

• • 

• r • 

• • 

# 

• • 

* * 

. . 

• • 

• 

• • 

o • o 

Tf  • > 


m in 

o • • 

• cn  • 

cn  • • 

• • ♦ 

HO  00 

in  • • 

• HO  • 

HO  • • 

• • • 

cn  cn 

ts  . . 

• • 

. Hjl  • 

of  * 

• v’  t 

\t-  . . 

cn  : : 

! ! I 

m in 
m <N 

ho  i— i 


o 

oo 

ts 


N 


• o 

o 

• <o 

<o 

• 

•OI 

o 

•o 

o 

• o 

o 

. HO 

•CN 

<N 

• in 

in 

• cn 

cn 

• 

• 

• OI 

• rH 

• o 

*H 

o 

• 

• 

• • 

o • 

o 

• 

• 

• 

• 

■ 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• • 

• 00 

00 

• • 

• 

00  • 

oo 

• 

• 

• • 

• rH 

*-H 

• • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• • 

•in 

in 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• 

• 

• 

o • 

o 

• 

• 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• cn 

cn 

• • 

cn  • 

cn 

• 

• 

• • 

• rH 

*-H 

• • 

• 

• 

• 

• • 

OK 

E-H 

OK 

OK 

E-i 

OK 

• 

• 

OK 

H (N  CO 
VO  Oh 
*H  ^<0 


vo  cn  in 

Cv|  HO  rH 

»n<N 


Oh 

o o 

t~  in 


oo  o 

<N 


in 

ts 

o 


oo 

ts 

ts 


ts 

O 

<N 


oo 

oo 

<N 


•o 

' ^ 


•o 

in 


o 


o 


vo 

H 

vo 

HO 


cn 

in 

o 

r\ 

l> 


oo 

HO 

HO 


00 

HO 

00 


vo 

> 

vo 

<o 


co 

in 

o 

r\ 

ts 


oo 

io 

XF 

vo 


oo 

vo 

Oo 


■o 

© 


o 

O 


o 

o 

»h 


O 

O 

*h 


» 

03 


t- 

o> 


Is. 

03 


ts 

03 


Eh  OW  Eh 


C3 

<V 

09 

G 

93 

5K 

<u 

6 

CO 

d 

O 

4-) 

'oo 

HH 

M 

C3 

G 

ft 

Jh 

H 

£ 

43 

O 

o 

G 

c n 

H 

H 

h 

H 

03 


CO 

T3 

pH 

T5 

§ 

fl 

CO 

0 

d 

(V 

CO 

rH 

C/!3 

^3 

HH 

> 

d 

HH 

0 

G 

d 

• rH 

hH 

u 

X 

G 

.s 

<U 

QJ 

• r-1 

4-> 

49 

4-> 

bn 

*bio 

W 

c» 

• ^ 

u 

u 

0) 

<U 

A 

> 

> 

£ 

NOTE  TO  TABLE  III 


CO  fll 

d <u 

> c 

5 O 


.co.Jh 

(UT3 
u G 

« & 
a 

g-s 

’be  ^ 

g#ft 

^•S 

si 

G G 

> 

G (U 

r,  CO 
CO  O 
-M  .fi 
co  '£3 

J G 

o 

4)  o3 

|& 

O ^ 

Pip  ^ 
CO  qj 

>•  CO 
CS  C 

£ o 
2 o 

G G 

• pH  rQ 

G 5s 

0)  o 

.£  G 

bfl’" 

■h 

CO  C3 

G X 
G ^ 


raj  T' 

03  « 

>>  33 
P £ 
^ G 

OJ  *H 

pG  T3 

■G  OJ 
cj_i  +-> 

° S 

3 G 

G ^ 


G 

6 

u 

G 


G 


-d  -G 

-=  03 


r-,  w 

G -G 

' ° _Q 

-1  pG  "G 

« 03  » 

. G 


c» 


e S 

p-  G S 
H +->  ft 
2 G o< 
-G  ^ 
•*  +J  G 
G ^ X! 

G ° ^ 
-G  G G 
n m .3 
e3  G 

“ s | 

ss 
£ 60 
G O 

o ~ 
o rd 
G « 

-G  & 

+■>  G 

ph  O 


CO 


G 

be 

e 

si 

O o 
fn^< 

fo 

•2  =0 
^ G 

8 If 

w s> 

o 


j>s 

"5 

O 

Sh 

c3 

CD 

>< 

<D 

C 

o 

c 

• *«H 

5h 

C3 

CD 

Oh 

Oh 

<1 

JG 

O 


G 

• *-H 

5 

o 

H 


n 

G 

Eh 


V)  o 

cp  00 


o 

co 


o o 

fH  t>» 


*o 

CO 


CN 


<N 


G 

bo 

© © 

CO  o 
G r 

gEh 

s 

2c 

© G 

^ S? 
^ ©> 
o 


V. 

© 

G 

is 


® § * o 
00  Jh  00  £ 


H CP  cq  H 


O W5  If) 

Tf1  CP  )> 


O O O O 

Tf  irj  Tji  CO 


<N 

"cf 

CP 


<N 


cp^if)cpn^if)Cio5Tfnif)coo(Mif)if)0)if) 

c0CD<0c0<0<0f0Oif)C0lf)>f)>f)C0C0c0(0>f)(0 


>> 

H 


be 

C3  5h 
co  Gh  G 

pG 

+J 

o 

G 

• pH 

G 

6 

c3 

>.  g pQ 

G 

P5 

T3 

« G « 

c co  si 

-be!  G 3 

o 

o 

-H 

O 

G 

c3 

5h 

G 

H> 

■H 

S G G 

o 

O 

o 

O &H  &h 

&H 

Ph 

X 

K 

X 

G 

G 

G 

G 

(h 


O 

be 

G 

• rH 

6 

o 


CO 

_.  W 
TJ  G 

G G 

•3  .5  I 

O G £ 
G C<  -h 


'O  G 
u *3 
O CO 
CH  (J 


>> 

pQ 


L 

G oS  _ . . 

h £ £ £ 


co  >3 

G nG 


G S 

o o 

-(->  -H 

bfl  be 

.s  .s 

*G  ^4 
G ^ 

rG  o 

£ £ 


G 

bp 

© 

si 

£ © 

.2 

G 

^ hf) 

s « 

t*3  §> 
© 


o 

cp 


o o o 

O)  O N O 

CP 


CP  <M  H H 


o o 

CP  CM 


ip 

cp 


o 

00 


o 

00 


o 

cp 


<M 


oq 


(N 


G 

bo 

© © 

f-l 
05  © 
G r~ 
O CH 

S 

2c 
© G 
G hfl 

O 


© 

G 


o o 

up  oo 


o 

CO 


O 

O 


o 

l> 


ID 

co 


»o 


o 

»o 


OlCPHlotOTt^iihiilOtOtHUlNTfcPtNif 

if)lf)(0<0H)CDf0C0if)>f)<0>f)if)<0if)Ol0>f)<0 

rH  fH  r-H  rH  f-H  i-H  rH  f-H  fH  rH  fH  i-H  fH  rH  rH  rH  r*H 


Eh 


c3 

G 

>>  -2 
G G 
C3  G 

a % 


G 

PH 

t-4 

G 


CO 


G 


G 
CO 
CO 
C3  G 


p-h  in 

co  o 

(-H 

pH  ^ 

G os 


CH 

o 


O 

-4-> 

CD 

PQ 

c3 

O 

U 

be 

• pH 

Dh 

o 

PS 

H 

PQ 

p 

G 

c3 

C3 

G 

cd 

o 

<v 

G 

G 

Q 

T3 

,d  G 

'Sj 

CO 

G 

c3 

<D 

a 

P — H 

c3 

G 

5h 

O 

c3 

«* 

G 

o 

H 

c3 

Sh 

Jh 

G 

• pH 

H 

O 

r— q 

E .S 

c3  > 

o 

u 

o 

u 

u 

O 

Ch 

fH 

fH 

KH  ?H 

HH  HH 

T5 

>>  g 

£ M 

Jh  »H 


09 

n3 

G 

pS  pj-H 

HH  ^ 

S ^ 

t3  - 

^ be 

G G 
G O 

J J 


1948]  Routes  of  Boston’s  Trade,  1752-1765  119 

TABLE  IV 


List  of  Voyages  with  Multiple  Termini, 
by  Year,  1752-1765 

CLEARANCES  TO 


Year 

17S9 

T ermini 

Voyages 

T onnage 

1753  

1754 

Isle  of  Man  & Glasgow 

1 

105 

1 7 5*5  

1756 

Ireland  & Bristol 

1 

100 

1757  

1758 

Ireland  & Great  Britain 

1 

125 

Ireland  & Liverpool 

1 

60 

Jamaica  & Monte-Christi 

1 

35 

1759 

Ireland  & Liverpool 

1 

125 

New  York  & Philadelphia 

1 

55 

1760 

Cork  & Bristol 

1 

90 

Halifax  & Louisbourg 

1 

30 

1761 

Ireland  & Liverpool 

1 

100 

1762 

Cork  & Bristol 

2 

160 

Halifax  & Louisbourg 

2 

90 

Halifax  & Newfoundland 

1 

60 

Louisbourg  & Quebec 

1 

30 

1763 

Belfast  & Bristol 

1 

110 

Cork  & Glasgow 

1 

120 

Halifax  & Newfoundland 

1 

35 

Ireland  & Glasgow 

1 

124 

Newfoundland  & Liverpool 

1 

80 

1764 

Africa  & Barbados 

1 

75 

Africa  & Dominica 

1 

60 

Cork  & Hull 

1 

70 

Isle  of  Man  & Liverpool 

1 

90 

1765 

Cape  Fear  & Roanoke 

1 

40 

Halifax  & Louisbourg 

1 

50 

Halifax  & Quebec 

1 

45 

Ireland  & Liverpool 

3 

305 

Isle  of  Man  & Liverpool 

1 

120 

Louisbourg  & Newfoundland 

3 

130 

Newfoundland  & Africa 

1 

50 

Nova  Scotia  & Newfoundland 
ENTRIES  FROM 

1 

25 

1752 

London  & Madeira 

1 

50 

Swansea  & Cork 

1 

75 

1753 

Anguilla  & St.  Kitts 

1 

55 

Isle  of  May  & Madeira 

1 

50 

Lisbon  & Fayal 

1 

120 

Newcastle  & Montserrat 

1 

80 

Swansea  & Cork 

1 

75 

1 20  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [feb. 


Tear 

Termini 

Voyages 

T onnage 

1754 

Anguilla  & Barbados 

2 

75 

Anguilla  & St.  Eustatius 

1 

20 

Barbados  & Sal  Tortuga 

1 

40 

Nevis  & Sal  Tortuga 

1 

50 

London  & Cadiz 

1 

80 

Swansea  & Cork 

1 

50 

1755 

London  & Cadiz 

1 

80 

1756 

Barbados  & Sal  Tortuga 

1 

60 

Cagliari  & Teneriffe 

1 

120 

South  Carolina  & New  York 

1 

45 

1757 

Bristol  & Cork 

1 

50 

Nevis  & St.  Kitts 

1 

38 

1758 

Bristol  & Cork 

1 

50 

1759 

Bristol  & Teneriffe 

1 

50 

Grande-Terre  & St.  Kitts 

1 

35 

1760 

Bristol  & Cork 

1 

65 

1761 

Guadeloupe  & Montserrat 

1 

50 

London  & Newcastle 

1 

80 

1762 

Barbados  & Sal  Tortuga 

1 

80 

Ireland  & Monte-Christi 

1 

180 

Jamaica  & St.  Martin 

1 

50 

Martinique  & St.  Martin 

4 

305 

St.  Kitts  & St.  Martin 

1 

90 

1763 

Antigua  & St.  Martin 

1 

50 

Barbados  & St.  Martin 

1 

40 

Bristol  & Swansea 

1 

80 

Grenada  & Martinique 

1 

100 

Martinique  & St.  Martin 

1 

40 

Newfoundland  & Halifax 

1 

50 

St.  Kitts  & St.  Martin 

1 

30 

1764 

Anguilla  & Grenada 

1 

60 

Barbados  & St.  Kitts 

1 

40 

Barbados  & Sal  Tortuga 

1 

70 

Bristol  & Hull  & Cork 

1 

90 

Cork  & Halifax 

1 

45 

Grenada  & Turk  Island 

1 

80 

Liverpool  & Cork 

1 

35 

London  & Cork 

1 

250 

London  & Lisbon 

1 

508 

Louisbourg  & Canso 

1 

55 

Newfoundland  & Cape  Breton 

1 

70 

1765 

Annapolis  & Ft.  Cumberland 

1 

40 

Barbados  & Sal  Tortuga 

3 

135 

Bonavista  & Turk  Island 

1 

50 

Dominica  & Martinque 

1 

180 

Grenada  & Sal  Tortuga 

1 

50 

Grenada  & St.  Thomas 

1 

100 

Hull  & Newcastle 

1 

100 

Jamaica  & Mosquito  Shore 

1 

45 

London  & Newcastle 

1 

160 

St.  Croix  & Turk  Island 

1 

40 

St.  Thomas  & Turk  Island 

1 

50 

Whitehaven  & Workington 

1 

65 

April  Meeting,  1948 

A STATED  Meeting  of  the  Society  was  held,  at  the  invita- 
tion of  Mr.  Augustus  Peadody  Loring,  Jr.,  at  No.  2 
^ Gloucester  Street,  Boston,  on  Thursday,  22  April  1948, 
at  a quarter  before  nine  o’clock.  Due  to  the  illness  of  the  Presi- 
dent, the  Vice-President,  the  Hon.  Robert  Walcott,  took  the 
chair.  In  the  absence  of  the  Recording  Secretary,  Mr.  Walter 
Muir  White  hill  was  designated  as  Recording  Secretary  pro 
tempore. 

The  records  of  the  last  Stated  Meeting  were  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

The  Vice-President  reported  the  death  on  2 February  1948 
of  Thomas  William  Lamont,  a Corresponding  Member. 

The  chair  appointed  the  following  committees  in  anticipation 
of  the  Annual  Meeting: 

To  nominate  candidates  for  the  several  offices, — Messrs.  Rob- 
ert Ephraim  Peabody,  Fred  Norris  Robinson  and  Charles 
Eliot  Goodspeed. 

To  examine  the  Treasurer’s  accounts, — Messrs.  Willard 
Goodrich  Cogswell  and  Arthur  Stanwood  Pier. 

To  arrange  for  the  Annual  Dinner, — Messrs.  Augustus  Pea- 
body Loring,  Jr.,  Samuel  Eliot  Morison  and  Walter  Muir 
Whitehill. 

Mr.  Richard  Walden  Hale,  Jr.,  read  the  following  paper: 

Antoine  de  Lamothe  Cadillac,  Lord 

of  Douaquet 

THE  self-styled  Antoine  de  Lamothe  Cadillac1  is  an  appealing 
and  mysterious  figure  in  early  American  annals,  for  his  career 
from  Maine  to  Louisiana  catches  one’s  imagination.  Detroit  re- 
veres him  as  its  founder,  and  has  named  after  him  the  Bok-Cadillac  hotel 
and  an  automobile.  Bar  Harbor  sometimes  calls  him  its  first  settler,  and 

1 Though  later  writers  and  bibliographical  dictionaries  have  varied  the  spelling  to 
La  Motte  and  La  Mothe,  Cadillac  was  almost  unique  among  the  French  in  Canada 
of  his  day  in  sticking  to  one  signature,  as  above.  See  Bulletin  des  Recherches  His- 
toriques , XV.  56. 


122 


The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

has  named  a mountain  after  him.  New  Orleans  laughs  at  legends  of  his 
governorship.  But  to  historians  Cadillac  is  a problem  for  the  records  he 
left  behind  him,  voluminous,  witty,  informative  and  entertaining  as  they 
are,  seem  warped.  They  are  filled  with  petty  discrepancies  on  points  where 
it  is  hard  to  make  a check.  Indeed  some  of  the  discrepancies  are  not  petty. 
Cadillac’s  origin  for  many  years  was  a mystery,  his  marriage  lines  in  Que- 
bec contradicting  his  baptismal  register  in  France.2  Those  who  have  tried 
to  study  his  career,  therefore,  have  been  met  with  a problem  of  what  rec- 
ords to  believe,  those  Cadillac  wrote,  or  most  of  the  rest. 

One  solution  of  this  dilemma  was  followed  by  the  late  Miss  Agnes 
Laut.  She  chose  to  believe  Cadillac  implicitly,  and  to  conjecture  as  to  what 
facts  had  been  omitted  that  would  have  reconciled  his  accounts  with  those 
of  others.  Another  solution  is  followed  by  Father  Jean  Delanglez,  who  as- 
serts that  most  uncorroborated  statements  by  Cadillac  are  if  so  facto  false.3 
However,  rather  than  follow  either  of  these  methods  of  interpretation  I 
should  like  to  suggest  another  way  in  which  to  reconcile  Cadillac’s  state- 
ments with  the  actual  facts.  Is  it  not  possible  that  he  embroidered  upon  the 
truth  with  a clear  cut  purpose  in  mind?  He  seem  to  have  well  understood 
a truth  about  the  French  Ministry  of  Marine  and  acted  on  it.  That  truth 
was  that  what  gained  a man  advancement  was  not  what  he  did  but  what 
the  clerks  in  the  ministry  thought  he  had  done.  Therefore,  the  moment  he 
secured  the  right  to  correspond  with  the  ministry,  he  “improved”  the  facts 
of  the  case  to  build  up  a legend  about  himself  by  virtue  of  which  he  became, 
successively,  Governor  of  Michilimackinac,  founder  and  Governor  of  De- 
troit, and  Governor  of  Louisiana.  This  belief  comes  from  searching  out  an 
unexplored  segment  of  Cadillac’s  life,  the  years  1687—1689,  when  he 
tried  to  found  a seigneurie  at  Douaquet,  at  the  head  of  Frenchman  Bay, 
Maine,  and  then  seized  the  opportunity  of  being  the  pilot  of  an  unsuccessful 
naval  attack  on  New  York  to  make  his  fortune.  The  clever  way  he  twisted 
the  record  of  his  doings  to  his  advantage,  the  steady  purpose  behind  his 
actions,  the  way  that  purpose  was  carried  through  throughout  the  rest  of 
his  time  in  America,  all  suggest  a means  of  correcting  for  misstatements  by 
Cadillac.  All  his  actions  seem  means  directed  towards  the  double  end  of 
seeming  to  be  a noble  and  of  acquiring  an  estate. 

The  starting  point,  therefore,  for  considering  his  career  at  Douaquet  is 

2 Edmond  Roy,  Raffort  sur  les  Archives  de  France  relatives  a Vhistoire  de  Canada 
(Ottawa,  1911),  pp.  998-1000 ; Bulletin  de  la  Societe  Historique  de  Tarn  et  Ga- 
ronne, xxxv.  175-196. 

3 Agnes  Laut,  Cadillac,  knight  errant  of  the  West  (Indianapolis,  Bobbs  Merrill, 
i93i),  fassim;  Jean  Delanglez,  “Cadillac’s  early  years  in  America,”  Mid-America, 
xxvi  (1944,  n.  s.  xv).  4,  12-13. 


1948]  Antoine  de  Lamothe  Cadillac  1 2 3 

not  identifying  that  name  with  the  Sorrento  peninsula  and  Waukeag  Neck, 
that  being  the  Douaquet  or  Adowake  of  the  Abenaki  Indians.4  What  is 
important  about  his  attempt  at  settlement  is  not  where  he  made  it,  but 
what  part  that  attempt  played  in  an  over-all  program  of  self-advancement. 
For,  when  the  probable  facts  about  Cadillac’s  early  life  are  laid  alongside 
the  unsubstantiated  statements  he  made  about  his  doings,  a pattern  emerges. 

These  seem  to  be  dependable  facts  about  those  years.  Cadillac  was  the 
son  of  Jean  Laumet,  a local  judge  at  St.  Nicholas  de  Gave  and  a lawyer 
practising  before  the  Parlement  or  regional  supreme  court  at  Toulouse. 
After  spending  some  time  on  the  Acadian  coast,  in  1687  married  Marie 
Therese  Guyon,  the  daughter  of  the  armorer  at  Quebec,  and  niece  of  the 
privateersman,  Francois  Guyon.  He  then  brought  her  back  to  Acadia, 
made  plans  for  setting  up  on  a large  scale  in  that  part  of  Acadia  which  is 
now  eastern  Maine,  got  embroiled  in  Acadian  politics  on  the  side  of  Royal 
Scrivener  Matthieu  Gouttins  and  against  Governor  de  Menneval,  and 
raised  some  capital  by  dividing  his  wife’s  inheritance  with  her  family.  Then, 
in  the  spring  of  1688  he  tried  to  settle  at  the  head  of  Frenchman  Bay — 
just  where  seems  uncertain  though  probably  at  either  Waukeag  or  Sorren- 
to— and  was  there  found  by  Sir  Edmund  Andros,  when  Sir  Edmund  was 
trying  to  expel  the  French  from  eastern  Maine  and  in  the  process  was 
making  a census  of  settlers  between  the  Penobscot  and  the  St.  Croix.  In 
consequence  of  Sir  Edmund’s  visit,  Cadillac  moved  back  to  Port  Royal  and 
in  1689  threw  his  real  and  valuable  energies  into  helping  build  a fort, 
winning  the  praise  that  “he  was  the  only  man  who  acted  with  good  will  in 
the  king’s  service  in  that  country.”  Then  the  man  who  so  praised  him, 
Captaine  de  la  Caffiniere,  of  the  frigate  Embuscadey  took  him  on  board  as  a 
pilot  for  a raid  on  New  York,  known  to  the  French  planners  of  it  by  the 
prophetic  name  of  “the  Manhattan  Project.”  This  raid  failed  utterly,  with 
the  result  that  Cadillac  wound  up  at  La  Rochelle  dead  broke,  and  there- 
fore justified  in  writing  to  the  Ministry  of  Marine  for  pay.  Here  was  a 
precious  opportunity  for  self-advertizement,  which  Cadillac  took  so  ef- 
fectively as  to  become  the  Ministry’s  expert  during  “King  Williams’s 
War”  for  operation  plans  on  the  New  England  coast,  and  so  to  set  his  foot 
on  the  ladder  he  was  to  climb  to  later  success.5 

When  Cadillac  reported  these  same  events,  much  fiction  was  added. 
At  his  marriage  he  called  himself  Antoine  de  Launay,  son  of  Jean  de 
Lamothe,  judge  of  the  Parlement  of  Toulouse  and  Lord  of  Cadillac, 

4 New  Brunswick  Historical  Society,  Publication  No.  13,  p.  94. 

0 L’Abbe  H.  A.  Verreau,  Quelque  notes  sur  Antoine  de  Lamothe  de  Cadillac , n.p. 
n.d.,  6-i oj  Archives  de  France,  Marine,  series  B 12,  pp.  86-87;  Colonies,  series 
C II  D 2,  1 19  vo;  Massachusetts  Historical  Society.  Collections , series  ill,  vol.  1.  82. 


1 24  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

Launay  and  Lemontel.  In  1694  he  asserted  he  had  so  bravely  defended 
Douaquet  he  deserved  the  title  of  Baron  de  Lamothe.  In  1 7 1 9,  as  a make- 
weight in  genuine  claims  of  loss  at  Detroit,  he  asserted  large  though  un- 
described losses  at  Douaquet  as  well.  When  in  1689,  he  wrote  to  the 
Ministry  of  Marine  about  his  unusual  abilities,  he  made  provable  false 
statements.  He  said  he  could  speak  not  only  French  but  English,  Dutch, 
and  “sauvage,”  though  to  the  end  of  his  life  he  had  to  use  interpreters  when 
dealing  with  Indians.  He  said  he  was  the  only  nobleman  in  Acadia  and 
had  been  chosen  to  command  an  attack  on  New  England  when  in  fact,  at 
the  moment  he  wrote,  a genuine  nobleman  in  Acadia,  the  Baron  de  St. 
Castin,  was  leading  such  an  attack.6  Why  should  a sensible  man  lie  like 
this? 

The  reason  seems  clear,  once  one  remembers  that  only  noblemen  could 
hold  high  military  office,  and  that  a poor  nobleman  had  no  chance  to  rise. 
The  lies  Cadillac  told  were  well  designed  to  help  on  his  career.  When  he 
asserted  he  was  Antoine  de  Launay,  the  son  of  the  Lord  of  Cadillac, 
Launay,  and  Lemontel,  he  made  a bluff  he  was  sure  would  not  be  called 
for  a long  time,  indeed  that  was  not  called  until  he  got  back  to  France,  in 
the  1720’s.7  As  the  son  of  a lawyer  who  had  practised  in  the  Toulouse 
Parlement  he  could  easily  pass  himself  off  as  the  son  of  a justice.  No  one 
in  Canada  could  cross  question  him  searchingly  enough  to  expose  him.  But, 
if  he  were  the  son  of  a justice,  he  belonged  to  the  legal  nobility,  the  noblesse 
de  la  robe } and  as  such  would  be  eligible  for  the  highest  of  commissions.  Was 
not  the  commander  against  Frederick  the  Great  the  Marshal  Belle-Isle, 
son  of  such  a noble?  Only  one  question  could  be  asked  of  him,  why  was  a 
man  of  such  birth  and  prospects  in  Canada.  But  that  question  he  had  an- 
swered before  it  was  asked.  By  calling  himself  De  Launay,  at  the  time  of 
his  marriage,  that  is  by  taking  the  name  of  his  father’s  imaginary  second 
estate  he  proclaimed  himself  a second  son.  What  would  be  more  natural 
than  for  a second  son  to  have  had  to  leave  the  army  for  honorable  reasons, 
perhaps  debt,  perhaps  a duel,  about  which  he  had  rather  not  talk,  and  to 
seek  his  fortune  in  Canada?  At  that  moment,  in  Maine,  there  was  such  an 
ex-army  officer  son  of  a noble,  Jean  d’Abbadie  son  of  the  Baron  de  St. 
Castin8  and  former  Ensign  in  the  regiment  of  Carignan-Salieres,  who  has 

6 Roy,  of.  cit .,  p.  9995  Paris,  Bib.  Nat.  Clairambault  mss.  849,  p.  705  Michigan 
Pioneer  and  Historical  Society.  Collections , xxxm  (1904).  648-649;  Clairambault 
mss.  882,  pp.  143-144;  Delanglez,  of.  cit.,  19-29. 

7 In  the  Margry  papers,  Bib.  Nat.  Mss.  fr.  n.a.  9299,  folio  1,  Father  Delanglez  has 
found  a reference  to  correspondence  about  the  alleged  nobility  of  Cadillac’s  family 
in  the  Archives  de  la  Gironde,  series  C 128  and  13 1. 

8 For  St.  Castin  see  Pierre  Daviault,  Le  Baron  de  St.  Castin , chef  Abenaquis  (Mon- 
treal, 1946). 


1948]  Antoine  de  Lamothe  Cadillac  1 2 5 

left  his  name  on  the  town  of  Castine.  If  Cadillac  murmured  that  he  had 
been  a cadet  of  Dampierre  or  of  Clairambault,9  and  obviously  changed  the 
subject,  who  would  be  so  impolite  as  to  press  him  further?  Or  if  the  self- 
styled  Antoine  de  Launay  announced  he  had  received  a letter  from  France 
telling  of  the  death  of  an  elder  brother  and  thereafter  styled  himself  Cadil- 
lac, who  would  raise  questions?  Such  a letter  did  come  to  Jean  d’Abbadie, 
who  thereafter  correctly  styled  himself  de  St.  Castin.  Nor  would  it  be 
surprising  if  the  Sieur  de  Cadillac  like  the  Baron  de  St.  Castin,  chose  to 
stay  in  Canada  rather  than  return  to  be  a petty  noble.  One  neat  lie,  closely 
stuck  to,  would  give  Cadillac  a favored  position  for  getting  one  of  the  few 
commissions  the  Governor  of  Canada  could  hand  out.  With  the  need  of 
trained  officers  so  great,  nobody  would  write  across  the  Atlantic  to  check 
up  on  an  able  man  whose  story  and  behaviour  were  plausible,  and  who  ap- 
peared fully  capable  of  doing  jobs  that  needed  being  done. 

But  a mere  title  of  nobility  was  not  enough.  One  had  to  have  something 
to  live  on,  especially  when  one  was  married  and  had  a family.  In  the  Cana- 
da of  those  days,  the  way  to  wealth  was  the  development  of  a seigneurie. 
But  it  was  slow  and  boring  work,  developing  an  agricultural  estate.  The 
way  to  get  ahead  quickly  was  to  combine  war  and  the  fur  trade.  By  such  a 
combination,  in  1700,  Charles  Le  Moyne  got  himself  made  Baron  de 
Longeuil,  thus  founding  a peerage  that  to  this  day  is  accepted  in  the  British 
Empire,  the  present  Baron  de  Longeuil,  indeed,  being  related  to  the  royal 
family  through  a connection  by  marriage  with  Her  Majesty  Queen  Eliza- 
beth.1 Why  should  not  Antoine  de  Lamothe  Cadillac  advance  by  that 
route  ? 

That  would  leave  one  question,  where  to  get  a seigneurie  where  fur 
and  war  could  be  found.  Acadia  offered  opportunities.  Its  politics  offered 
a chance  to  play  both  ends  against  the  middle.  Its  seigneuries  were  little 
controlled,  until  1699, 2 when  a series  of  investigating  commissions  tried 
to  enforce  regulations.  There  were  no  Jesuits,  as  at  Michilimackinac,  to 
report  independently  against  one;  there  was  no  fur  trade  monopoly. 
Furthermore  Cadillac  may  have  known  Acadia  well.  He  said  he  did,  and 
wrote  an  able  memoir  on  its  waters,  of  which  copies  numbered  76  and  78 
are  still  on  file  in  Paris.3  It  has  been  conjectured  that  Cadillac  served  with 
his  uncle-in-law,  Francois  Guyon,  the  idea  apparently  originating  with 

9 Colonies  D 2c,  222,  556  (Alphabet  Lafillard)  $ Michigan  Pioneer  and  Historical 
Society,  of.  cit.,  p.  6485  see  further,  Delanglez,  of.  cii.,  pp.  4-7. 

1 Burke’s  Peerage , 1949  (99th)  Edition  (London,  1949),  p.  2205. 

2 Colonies.  C II,  D 3,  103  j D 4,  4 and  36. 

3 Colonies.  C II  D 2. 


1 2 6 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

Clarence  M.  Burton  and  being  copied  without  acknowledgement  so  often 
as  to  gain  credence.4  As  for  war,  New  England  was  close  by. 

Acadia,  in  1688,  in  the  eyes  of  the  French,  extended  as  far  west  as 
Thomaston,  Maine.  It  was  a region  believed  to  be  wealthy,  on  good  evi- 
dence, from  its  fur  trade,  for  which,  for  more  than  half  a century,  French, 
Scotch,  English  and  Dutch  had  struggled.  During  the  1630’s  and  1640’s 
the  Latours  and  De  Launay  had  fought  a feudal  war  in  the  course  of  which 
the  Latours  had  fortified  their  claims  by  accepting  Scotch  baronetcies  of 
Nova  Scotia.  After  Cromwell’s  armies  had  been  disbanded,  Colonel  Sir 
William  Temple  had  taken  the  Acadian  fur  monopoly  in  lieu  of  a pension 
and  done  well  by  it.  In  1672,  Jean  Talon,  the  real  founder  of  French 
Canada,  had  considered  Acadia  so  important  as  to  plant  seigneuries  on  its 
border  even  before  he  planted  them  near  Montreal.  In  1676  the  semi- 
piratical  Dutch  West  India  Company  had  taken  over  Acadia  as  booty 
from  the  Penobscot  to  Canso  and  had  made  a good  thing  out  of  it  till 
forced  to  disgorge  when  peace  was  signed.  After  the  Dutch  had  gone — 
here  was  where  Cadillac’s  chance  came — a series  of  adventurers  had  set- 
tled in  the  present  eastern  Maine,  from  Thomaston  to  Quoddy,  taking  title 
from  grants  of  seigneuries  made  in  Quebec.  By  1705  there  were  seven 
such  seigneuries,  all  at  points  of  transshipment  of  furs  from  canoe  to  sail- 
ing vessel:  Grandchamp  at  the  present  Thomaston;  Hauteville  at  Nas- 
keag;  Douaquet  in  Frenchman  Bay;  Thibeaudeau  near  Cherryfield; 
Magesse  at  Machias;  St.  Aubin  at  Passamaquoddy ; and  Descoudet  in- 
side Quoddy  Bay.  Two  of  these,  Hauteville  and  Thibeaudeau,  were  paper 
grants,  apparently  never  occupied.  The  Siegneur  of  Hauteville  appears 
again  in  Quebec  jail;  sly  old  Pierre  Thibeaudeau  preferred  to  live  profita- 
bly at  the  head  of  Minas  Basin  on  another  man’s  land.  But  the  other  grants 
made  money.  The  Lefebvres  of  Grandchamp,  though  evicted  by  Captain 
Church  in  1 703,  as  late  as  1725  were  hoping  to  go  back  to  their  seigneurie 
and  did  fealty  for  it.  Martel  and  Dubreuil  of  Magesse  came  to  blows  often 
with  the  St.  Aubins  of  Passamaquoddy  over  the  profitable  seal  rookery  on 
Machias  Seal  Island.  Michel  Chartier  of  Descoudet  was  rich  enough  to 
give  his  wife  silk  stockings  for  Yankee  plunderers  to  carry  off.  In  later 
years  other  proofs  of  such  wealth  appeared,  when  Yankee  farmers  and 
railway  builders  dug  up  coin  hoards.5  Here  was  a chance  to  build  up  wealth, 
on  the  very  frontier. 

4 See  Clarence  M.  Burton,  In  the  footsteps  of  Cadillac  (Detroit,  1 899) . 

5 For  accounts  of  this  “forest  feudalism”  see  Edmond  Rameau  de  St.  Pere,  Une 
Colonie  Feodale  en  Amerique , UAcadie  (Paris),  2 vols.,  1889,  Daviault,  of . cit., 
and  Richard  W.  Hale,  Jr.,  The  Story  of  Bar  Harbor  (New  York,  Ives  Washburn, 

1949)- 


1948]  Antoine  de  Lamothe  Cadillac  127 

What  more  natural  to  assume  that  Cadillac  saw  the  opportunities  of  this 
“forest  feudalism”  when  he  came  to  Acadia,  and  that  if  he  had  lived  at 
Douaquet  he  would  have  lived  as  did  the  other  seigneurs?  The  phrase 
“forest  feudalism”  has  been  used  here  because  these  seigneuries  were  so 
different  from  the  usual  agricultural  seigneuries  of  Canada  proper.  Cen- 
suses of  Acadia  show  in  these  seigneuries  no  sawmills  and  gristmills  such 
as  were  supposed  to  be  built,  no  small  but  steadily  growing  population  of 
“habitants”  settled  on  the  land,  no  priest  and  church.  Instead  they  list 
small  arsenals  for  defense,  a few  occasional  white,  unmarried  servants  to 
act  as  garrison,  and  a small  but  steadily  growing  population  of  resident  In- 
dians, come  presumably  and  in  some  records  avowedly,  to  trade.  The  most 
one  finds  of  farming  is  a tiny  vegetable  garden.  Nor  are  the  sites  of  the 
seigneuries  chosen  for  agricultural  reasons.  They  are  at  the  mouths  of 
rivers,  where  Indian  canoes  can  transship  furs  to  seagoing  vessels.  Note  the 
parallel  to  Detroit,  in  the  days  when  Cadillac  was  its  first  governor.  Vege- 
table gardens,  an  attempt  at  seignorial  grants  of  land  through  the  governor 
and  not  direct  from  the  King,  fur  trade  all  in  Cadillac’s  hands,  a growing 
Indian  center,  the  parallel  to  Acadia  is  close.  Even  more  so  is  the  parallel 
to  Douaquet,  even  to  the  point  that  at  both  places  Cadillac  tried  to  raise 
his  near  nobility  of  a seigneur  to  true  nobility,  at  Douaquet  to  a barony, 
at  Detroit  to  a marquisate.  The  parallel  is  so  close  to  make  one  wonder 
what  was  in  the  letter  Matthieu  Gouttins  wrote  about  the  plans  of  the 
Sieur  de  Cadillac,  2 September  1689. 6 Perhaps  this  in  words  foreshadowed 
the  settlement  of  Detroit  on  the  principles  of  feudal  free  enterprise,  as 
Cadillac’s  actions  certainly  did.  Certainly,  when  Cadillac’s  career  is  looked 
at  in  this  light,  a good  measure  of  consistency  appears  where  it  had  been 
absent.  Given  the  aims  of  a noble  title  and  wealth  in  the  fur  trade,  Cadil- 
lac’s careful  warping  of  his  official  record  becomes  explicable. 


6 Michigan  Pioneer  and  Historical  Society,  of.  cit.  xxxm.  165,  651-653,  663,  670. 
Ibid.,  XXIV.  1 9-29,  has  an  inventory  of  Cadillac’s  possessions  at  the  end  of  his  stay  that 
shows  what  wealth  could  be  secured  at  Detroit.  Gouttins’  letter  is  in  Colonies  C II, 
D 2,  dated  2 September  1689  and  misfiled  under  1690. 


Journey  to  Hadley 

iy  May  1948 

ON  Saturday,  15  May  1948,  twenty-six  members  of  the 
Society  journeyed  to  Hadley  at  the  invitation  of  Dr. 
James  Lincoln  Huntington.  The  group  left  the  Club 
of  Odd  Volumes  in  Boston  at  a half  after  nine  o’clock  in  the 
morning  in  a Boston  and  Maine  Transportation  Company  bus, 
escorted  by  a motorcycle  trooper  of  the  State  Police,  and  arrived 
in  Hadley  shortly  after  noon.  The  Society  visited  the  First 
Church  of  Christ  in  Hadley,  where  the  communion  silver  was 
on  display,  and  the  Farm  Museum  before  proceeding  northward 
to  Dr.  Huntington’s  home.  A buffet  luncheon  was  served  in  the 
remodelled  coach  house  at  a half  after  one  o’clock,  and  the  So- 
ciety then  visited  the  Porter-Phelps-Huntington  house.  The  bus 
started  on  its  return  journey  at  four  o’clock  and  arrived  in  Boston 
shortly  after  six  o’clock  in  the  evening. 

In  commemoration  of  this  visit,  the  Society  distributed  to  its 
Members  in  1949  copies  of  Forty  Acres , The  Story  of  the  Bishof 
Huntington  House  y written  by  Dr.  Huntington  and  illustrated 
with  photographs  by  Mr.  Samuel  Chamberlain,  also  a Resi- 
dent Member  of  the  Society. 


Annual  Meeting 

November,  1948 

THE  Annual  Meeting  of  the  Society  was  held  at  the 
Algonquin  Club,  No.  217  Commonwealth  Avenue,  Bos- 
ton, on  Saturday,  20  November  1948,  at  a quarter  after 
six  o’clock  in  the  evening,  the  President,  Augustus  Peabody 
Loring,  Jr.,  in  the  chair. 

With  the  consent  of  those  present,  the  reading  of  the  records 
of  the  last  Stated  Meeting  was  omitted. 

The  Hon.  Raymond  Sanger  Wilkins,  of  Salem  and  Mr. 
Edward  Ely  Curtis,  of  Wellesley,  were  elected  to  Resident 
Membership,  and  Mr.  Carl  Bridenbaugh,  of  Williamsburg, 
Virginia,  was  elected  to  Corresponding  Membership  in  the  So- 
ciety. 

The  Annual  Report  of  the  Council  was  read  by  Mr.  Zech- 
ariah  Chafee,  Jr. 

Report  of  the  Council 

TT  is  appropriate  to  begin  with  a tribute  to  the  men  whom  we  have  met 
to  honor  tonight.  It  is  one  paragraph  by  James  Rawson  Gardiner  in 
the  chapter  on  the  sailing  of  the  Mayflower  in  his  history  of  England  in 
the  reigns  of  James  I and  Charles  I.  “All  these  considerations  urged  the 
exiles  [in  Leyden]  to  seek  another  home.  The  ideal  of  the  pure  and  sin- 
less community  which  they  hoped  to  found  was  still  floating  before  their 
eyes,  and  was  drawing  them  on  as  it  receded  before  them.  Let  us  not  stop 
to  inquire  whether  such  an  ideal  was  attainable  on  earth.  It  is  enough  that 
in  striving  to  realize  it,  they  did  that  which  the  world  will  not  willingly 
forget.” 

The  Society  has  held  three  meetings  since  the  last  annual  meeting.  In 
December,  at  the  Club  of  Odd  Volumes,  Mr.  C.  E.  Goodspeed  read  a 
paper.  In  February,  Mr.  S.  E.  Morison  contributed  the  gastronomy  and 
Mr.  Edmund  S.  Morgan  the  history,  again  at  the  Club  of  Odd  Volumes. 
In  April,  our  President  entertained  the  Society  at  his  house  and  Mr.  Rich- 
ard Walden  Hale,  Jr.,  was  the  speaker. 

There  have  been  no  publications  during  the  year.  The  Editor  has  in 


130  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [nov. 

preparation  another  volume  of  'Transactions  and  another  volume  of  Har- 
vard College  Records;  and  Mr.  Allis  is  at  work  on  the  Black  papers  con- 
cerning Maine  lands. 

Two  Resident  Members  elected  at  the  last  Annual  Meeting  are  now 
enrolled:  Kenneth  John  Conant  and  Frederick  Lewis  Weis.  Six 
other  Resident  Members  have  also  joined  us:  Samuel  Chamberlain, 
Julian  Lowell  Coolidge,  Bartlett  H.  Hayes,  Jr.,  Henry  For- 
bush  Howe,  Carleton  R.  Richmond,  and  Sidney  Talbot  Strick- 
land. 

We  have  gladly  welcomed  two  Honorary  Members.  It  is  very  appro- 
priate that  one  is  a descendant  of  a founder  of  the  Plymouth  Colony, 
Robert  F.  Bradford;  and  the  other  is  Leverett  Saltonstall,  a de- 
scendant of  a founder  of  the  Massachusetts  Bay  Colony. 

During  1948  the  Society  has  lost  two  Corresponding  Members,  ripe  in 
years  and  achievements: 

Thomas  William  Lamont,  Corresponding,  1927,  died  on  2 
February  at  the  age  of  seventy-seven.  Banker,  benefactor  of  Exeter  and 
Harvard,  owner  of  the  New  York  Evening  Post  in  its  last  years  of  great- 
ness and  of  the  Saturday  Review  oj  Literature  in  its  first  years  of  promise. 
Like  the  merchants  of  London,  he  made  possible  the  adventurous  voy- 
ages of  other  men— through  the  seas  of  thought.  Between  the  two  World 
Wars,  he  reversed  the  course  of  the  Pilgrims  and  sought  to  bring  fruitful 
living  and  new  ideas  into  the  Old  World.  He  failed  as  Raleigh  failed  at 
Roanoke,  but  his  example  makes  us  keep  on  trying. 

Charles  Austin  Beard,  Corresponding,  1928,  died  on  2 September, 
aged  seventy-three.  One  of  the  very  few  Americans  who  has  had  the 
courage  to  resign.  He  gave  up  his  career  as  professor  of  history  in  a uni- 
versity dominated,  so  he  said,  by  “a  small  and  active  group  of  trustees,  re- 
actionary and  visionless  in  politics  and  medieval  in  religion.”  Suggesting 
new  lines  of  historical  research,  he  wrote  The  Economic  Interpretation  oj  the 
Constitution , but  he  did  not  believe  in  the  economic  interpretation  of  the 
Constitution,  for  his  imaginative  insight  comprehended  all  the  varied 
forces  which  brought  about  the  rise  of  American  civilization  and  shaped 
our  Republic.  Historians  who  reject  the  conclusions  of  his  final  books  still 
remember  that  “A  man’s  life  is  his  whole  life,  not  the  last  glimmering  snuff 
of  the  candle.” 

The  Treasurer  submitted  his  Annual  Report  as  follows: 


1948] 


Report  of  the  Treasurer 


I31 


Report  of  the  Treasurer 

In  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  the  By-laws,  the  Treasurer 
submits  his  Annual  Report  for  the  year  ending  14  November  1948. 


Statement  of  Assets  and  Funds,  14  November  1948 


ASSETS 

Cash: 

Income 

Loan  to  Principal 

Investments  at  Book  Value 

Bonds  (Market  Value  $138,600.88) 

Stocks  (Market  Value  $112,509.38) 

Savings  Bank  Deposits 
Total  Assets 


$11,857.50 

: 7,223.83  $4,633.67 


$141,385.04 

83,464-31 

3,309.9!  228,159.26 

$232,792.93 


FUNDS 

Funds 

Unexpended  Income 
Total  Funds 


$213,966.52 

18,826.41 

$232,792.93 


Income  Cash  Receipts  and  Disbursements 


Balance,  14  November  1947 

RECEIPTS: 

Interest 

Dividends 

Annual  Assessments 

Sales  of  Publications 

Total  Receipts  of  Income 

DISBURSEMENTS: 

New  England  Quarterly 
Editor’s  Salary 
Secretarial  Expenses 
Annual  Dinner 
Storage 

Notices  and  Expenses  of  Meetings 
Postage,  Office  Supplies  and  Miscellaneous 


$1 1,913.26 


$2,582.50 

5.315.30 

770.00 
89.OO 

8,756.80 

$20,670.06 

$2,800.00 

1,500.00 

860.00 

797-5! 

300.76 

403.79 

176.72 


1 3 2 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts 

[nov. 

Auditing  Services 

125.00 

Publications 

385-15 

Safe  Deposit  Box 

24.00 

General  Expenses 

Interest  on  Henry  H.  Edes  Memorial  Fund  added 

11.25 

to  Principal 

Interest  on  Sarah  Louisa  Edes  Fund  added  to  Prin- 

308.56 

cipal 

1, 1 19.82 

Total  Disbursements  of  Income 

$8,812.56 

Balance  of  Income,  14  November  1948 

$11,857.50 

James  M.  Hunnewell 

T reasurer 


Report  of  the  Auditing  Committee 

The  undersigned,  a committee  appointed  to  examine  the  accounts  of  the 
Treasurer  for  the  year  ended  14  November  1948,  have  attended  to  their 
duty  by  employing  Messrs.  Stewart,  Watts  and  Bollong,  Public  Account- 
ants and  Auditors,  who  have  made  an  audit  of  the  accounts  and  examined 
the  securities  on  deposit  in  Box  91  in  the  New  England  Trust  Company. 

We  herewith  submit  their  report,  which  has  been  examined  and  ac- 
cepted by  the  Committee.  ^ ~ 

r 7 Willard  Cj.  Cogswell 

Arthur  S.  Pier 

Auditing  Committee 


The  several  reports  were  accepted  and  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Publication. 

On  behalf  of  the  committee  appointed  to  nominate  officers 
for  the  ensuing  year  the  following  list  was  presented ; and  a 
ballot  having  been  taken,  these  gentlemen  were  unanimously 
elected: 

President  Augustus  Peabody  Loring,  Jr. 

Vice-Presidents  Hon.  FredTarbell  Field 
Hon.  Robert  Walcott 

Recording  Secretary  Robert  Earl  Moody 

C or  responding  Secretary  Zechariah  Chafee,  Jr. 

Treasurer  James  Melville  Hunnewell 

Registrar  Robert  Dickson  Weston 

Member  oj  the  Council  jor  Three  Years  Robert  Ephraim  Peabody 


1948]  Dinner  133 

After  the  meeting  was  dissolved,  dinner  was  served.  The 
guests  of  the  Society  were  Mr.  Mark  Bortman,  Mr.  A.  Stanton 
Burnham,  Dr.  J.  M.  Kinmonth,  Mr.  Storer  Boardman  Lunt, 
Mr.  David  McCord,  Commander  James  C.  Shaw  and  Professor 
Basil  Willey.  The  Reverend  Henry  Wilder  Foote  said  grace. 

Mr.  Basil  Willey,  King  Edward  vii  Professor  of  English 
Literature  in  the  University  of  Cambridge,  addressed  the  So- 
ciety and  its  guests. 


December  Meeting,  1948 

A STATED  Meeting  of  the  Society  was  held  at  the  Club 
of  Odd  Volumes,  No.  77  Mount  Vernon  Street,  Boston, 
L on  Thursday,  23  December  1948,  at  three  o’clock  in 
the  afternoon,  the  President,  Augustus  Peabody  Loring,  Jr., 
in  the  chair. 

The  records  of  the  Annual  Meeting  in  November  were  read 
and  approved. 

The  Treasurer,  on  behalf  of  the  Corresponding  Secretary,  re- 
ported the  receipt  of  a letter  from  the  Honorable  Raymond 
Sanger  Wilkins  accepting  election  to  Resident  Membership 
in  the  Society. 

Mr.  Henry  Hornblower,  II,  of  Boston  and  Mr.  Waldron 
Phoenix  Belknap,  Jr.,  of  Boston,  were  elected  Resident  Mem- 
bers of  the  Society. 

The  Reverend  Frederick  L.  Weis  read  a paper  entitled: 


The  New  England  Company  of  1 649 

and  its  Missionary  Enterprises 

THREE  hundred  years  ago  the  New  England  Company  for 
propagating  the  gospel  among  the  Indians— the  oldest  Prot- 
estant foreign  missionary  society  in  the  world — was  chartered  by 
Act  of  Parliament  on  27  July  1649.  This  ancient  corporation  is  still 
carrying  on  the  work  for  which  it  was  established,  though  now  in  places 
far  removed  from  New  England.1 

1 For  the  business  transactions  of  this  corporation,  and  a general  introduction  to  the 
whole  subject,  see:  George  Parker  Winship,  The  New  England  Company  of  1649 
and  John  Eliot  [ Publications  of  the  Prince  Society , xxxvi]  (Boston,  1920),  and 
“Samuel  Sewall  and  the  New  England  Company”  in  Proc.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  lxvii. 
55—110.  Material  concerning  the  missionary  work  in  New  England  is  abundant,  an 
embarrassment  of  riches.  Cf.  J.  Hammond  Trumbull,  “Origin  and  Early  Progress 
of  Indian  Missions  in  New  England,”  in  “Report  of  the  Council,”  1 Proc.  Am.  Antiq. 
Soc.y  lxi.  15—61,  containing  an  appendix  of  “Books  and  Tracts  in  the  Indian  Lan- 
guage”} Daniel  Gookin,  “Historical  Collections  of  the  Indians  in  New  England, 
&c.”  1674,  in  1 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  1.  141— 232;  also  Gookin,  “An  Historical  Ac- 
count of  the  Doings  and  Sufferings  of  the  Christian  Indians,  in  New  England  in 
the  Years  1675,  1676,  1677,”  Trans.  Am.  Antiq.  Soc.,  11.  423-534;  Experience 
Mayhew,  Indian  Converts  (London,  1727);  “Acts  of  the  Commissioners  of  the 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1649  135 

But  missionary  work  among  the  Indians  had  been  started  some  years 
previous  to  this  date.  In  his  Wonder  Working  Providence y &c.,  completed 
in  1651  and  first  published  in  1654,  Captain  Edward  Johnson  of  Wo- 
burn describes  the  Indians  as  he  knew  them,  and  acquaints  us  with  the 
beginnings  of  missionary  work  among  them  at  that  time.  “The  Indian 
people  in  these  parts  at  the  English  first  coming,  were  very  barbarous  and 
uncivilized,  going  for  the  most  part  naked,  although  the  country  be  ex- 
treme cold  in  the  winter-season.”  Their  clothing  was  made  of  deer- 
skin. The  women  did  all  the  work  at  planting  time,  while  the  braves 
spent  their  time  hunting,  fishing  and  fowling.  As  Captain  Johnson  af- 
firms: “This  is  all  the  trade  they  use,  which  makes  them  destitute  of  many 
necessaries,  both  in  meat,  drink,  apparell  and  houses. 

“As  for  any  religious  observation,  they  are  the  most  destitute  of  any 
people  yet  heard  of.”  Soon  after  the  first  settlement,  the  English  attempt- 
ed to  bring  them  to  the  knowledge  of  God,  particularly  the  Reverend 
John  Wilson  of  Boston,  who  visited  their  sick  and  instructed  others  as 
they  were  capable  of  understanding  him.  “But  yet  very  little  was  done 
that  way,  till  . . . now  of  late  years  the  reverend  Mr.  Eliot  hath  been 
more  than  ordinary  laborious  to  study  their  language,  instructing  them 
in  their  own  Wigwams,  and  Catechising  their  Children.  As  also  the  rev- 
erend Mr.  Mayhewe,  one  who  was  tutored  up  in  New  England,  and 
called  to  office  by  the  Church  of  Christ,  gathered  at  a small  Island  called 
Martins  Vineyard;  this  man  hath  taken  good  pains  with  them.”  “Also 
Mr.  William  Leveridge,  Pastor  of  Sandwich  Church,  is  very  serious  there- 
in, and  with  good  success.”2 

Of  the  early  Massachusetts  tracts  relating  to  the  conversion  of  the  In- 
dians, now  very  rare,  those  which  would  have  been  known  to  Johnson, 

United  Colonies  of  New  England,”  Records  of  the  Colony  of  New  Plymouth , David 
Pulsifer,  Editor,  ix— X (Boston,  1859);  J°hn  W.  Ford,  Some  Correspondence  Be- 
tween the  Governors  and  Treasurers  of  the  New  England  Company  in  London  and 
the  Commissioners  of  the  United  Colonies  in  America , The  Missionaries  of  the  Com- 
pany and  Others  Between  the  Years  1637  and  1712,  To  Which  are  added  the  Jour- 
nals of  the  Rev.  Experience  May  hew  in  1713  and  1714  (London,  1896),  xxxii,  128; 
also  numerous  letters  and  reports  of  the  missionaries  Eliot,  Mayhew,  Cotton,  Bourne, 
the  Tuppers  and  Treat,  and  the  tracts  by  Winslow,  Eliot,  Shepard,  the  Mathers,  and 
other  English  and  American  divines;  Cotton  Mather,  Magnalia  Christi  Americana ; 
Sprague,  A nnals  of  the  A merican  Pulpit , 1.  1 8—2  3 [Eliot] , 116—117  [Pierson]  ,131— 
1 3 3 [Missionary  Mayhews],  183—186  [Treat],  318—321  [Peabody],  329—335 
[Edwards],  388— 393  [Sergeant],  497— 499  [Hawley],  548— 556  [West]  ; F.  L.  Weis, 
Colonial  Clergy  and  Colonial  Churches  of  New  England  (Lancaster,  1936)  ; and  the 
standard  histories  of  Massachusetts  and  New  England. 

2 Johnson’s  W onder-W orking  Providence , J.  Franklin  Jameson,  Editor  (New  York, 
1910), 262— 264. 


1 3 6 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

at  the  time  the  above  pages  were  written,  are:  New  Englands  First  Fruits 
( 1643),  The  Day-Breaking  ij  not  the  Sun-Rising  oj  the  G os  fell  with  the  In- 
dians in  New  England  (1647),  The  Clear  Sunshine  oj  the  G os fell  breaking 
jorth  ufon  the  Indians  oj  New  England  (1648),  and  The  Glorious  Progress 
oj  the  G os fell  amongst  the  Indians  oj  New  England  (1649). 3 These  tracts 
express  the  hope  that  this  good  work  may  be  continued  by  encouraging 
active  young  students  at  Harvard  College  to  study  the  Indian  language, 
converse  with  the  natives,  and  preach  to  them  “that  so  the  gospell  might 
be  spread  in  those  darke  parts  of  the  world.” 

William  Wood’s  New  England’s  Prosfect  ( 1633)  mentions  “one  of  the 
English  preachers”  who  “hath  spent  much  time  in  attaining  to  their  lan- 
guage, wherein  he  can  speake  to  their  understanding,  and  they  to  his.” 
This  undoubtedly  refers  to  the  Reverend  Roger  Williams  who  was 
probably  the  first  to  labor  as  a missionary  among  the  Indians  of  Massa- 
chusetts, for  he  speaks  of  working  among  them  when  he  was  the  Congre- 
gational minister  of  the  First  Church  in  Plymouth,  1631—1633,  and  later 
at  Salem,  before  he  was  banished.4  After  his  settlement  at  Providence,  he 
was  chiefly  concerned  with  the  Narragansett  Indians. 

The  Narragansetts,  a warlike  race,  had  subjugated  the  neighboring 
tribes  before  the  white  men  came  to  America.  Thus  the  Niantics,  Cowe- 
sets,  Shawomets  and  Nipmucs  to  the  west  and  north,  and  the  Wampa- 
noags,  Pocassets  and  Sakonnets  to  the  east,  as  well  as  the  Massachusetts 
Indians,  were  their  vassals.  Their  domain  extended  from  Weymouth  to 
Mt.  Wachusett  on  the  north,  and  to  the  Atlantic  on  the  east  and  south. 
The  Narragansetts  were  persistently  averse  to  Christianity,  but  friendly  to 
Roger  Williams  apart  from  his  missionary  endeavors.5 

In  the  preface  to  his  Key  into  the  Language  oj  America , printed  at  Lon- 
don in  1643,  Williams  wrote:  “My  souls  desire  was  to  do  the  natives 
good,  and  to  that  end  . . . God  was  pleased  to  give  me  a painful  Patient 
spirit  to  lodge  with  them,  in  their  filthy  Smoke  holes  (even  when  I lived 
at  Plymouth  and  Salem)  to  gain  their  tongue.” 

New  England’s  Prosfect,  mentioned  above,  included  five  pages  of  In- 
dian-English  vocabulary.  But  Roger  Williams’  Key  contained  the  first 
extensive  vocabulary  or  study  of  the  Indian  language  printed  in  English, 

3 The  first  tract  is  reprinted  in  1 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  1.  242-250;  the  three  fol- 
lowing- tracts  were  reprinted  in  3 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  IV.  The  latter  contain  let- 
ters by  Mr.  Eliot.  The  Clear  Sunshine , &c.  is  by  Rev.  Thomas  Shepard  of  Cambridge. 

4 Weis,  Colonial  Clergy  of  N.  E .,  229. 

5 Howard  Millar  Chapin’s  “Introduction”  to  Williams’  Key , &c.  (5th  edition, 
Providence,  1936). 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1649  1 37 

and  “it  must  have  been  of  great  practical  use  to  the  missionaries,  traders 
and  early  settlers  in  the  outlying  districts  of  New  England.”5 

In  his  preface  Mr.  Williams  dwells  at  considerable  length  upon  the 
conversion  of  the  Indians,  so  much  to  be  desired.  “For  my  selfe,”  he 
writes,  “I  have  uprightly  laboured  to  suite  my  endeavours  to  my  pre- 
tences.” Yet  notwithstanding  his  efforts,  he  confesses  that  he  cannot  “re- 
port much.”  However,  Wequash,  a Pequot  captain,  before  his  death  re- 
minded Mr.  Williams  that  two  or  three  years  previously  they  had  spoken 
of  God  and  Man.  Said  he,  “Your  words  were  never  out  of  my  heart  to 
the  present;  me  much  pray  to  Jesus  Christ.”  But  aside  from  Wequash, 
Williams  did  not  succeed  in  persuading  the  Indians  to  accept  Christianity, 
and  he  soon  gave  up  in  discouragement.  In  England  he  had  better  suc- 
cess. Several  prominent  members  of  Parliament  commended  “his  print- 
ed Indian  labours”  and  when  he  returned  to  New  England  a year  later, 
he  brought  with  him  a charter  for  his  Rhode  Island  Colony,  due  perhaps 
in  considerable  measure  to  his  Key  into  the  Language  oj  America  and  his  un- 
selfish missionary  efforts.6 

But  the  first  instance  of  an  Indian  who  really  became  a Christian  was 
that  of  Hiacoomes,  in  the  year  1643,  at  Martha’s  Vineyard.  This  result- 
ed from  the  preaching  and  friendly  attitude  of  the  Reverend  Thomas 
Mayhew,  Jr.,  to  the  natives  of  his  father’s  island  possessions.  By  1646 
the  younger  Thomas  had  attained  such  mastery  of  the  Indian  language 
as  to  be  able  to  preach  to  the  natives  in  their  own  tongue  without  the  help 
of  an  interpreter,  and  before  the  end  of  the  year  1650  a hundred  Indians 
of  the  Vineyard  had  embraced  Christianity.  Mr.  Mayhew  sailed  for 
England  on  business  connected  with  the  future  welfare  of  these  natives 
in  1657,  but>  with  all  hands,  was  lost  at  sea,  and  the  ship  was  never  again 
heard  from.7 

As  early  as  1643,  perhaps  earlier,  the  Reverend  John  Eliot,  the  “Apos- 
tle to  the  Indians,”  had  begun  his  study  of  the  Algonquin  tongue,  in  or- 
der to  preach  in  that  language.  To  this  end  he  discovered  an  intelligent 
Indian  in  the  neighboring  town  of  Dorchester  who  had  learned  to  speak 
English  with  considerable  success.  “He  was  the  first,”  wrote  Mr.  Eliot, 
“that  I made  use  of  to  teach  me  words,  and  to  be  my  Interpreter.”  In 
September,  1646,  he  spoke  to  the  natives  at  Neponset.  They  listened 
sympathetically,  but  showed  little  interest  in  what  he  had  to  say.  How- 
ever, he  kept  coming  back  to  them  and  eventually  he  won  their  confi- 
dence, first  at  Dorchester  and  later  at  Punkapoag,  to  which  place  they 

6 Knowles,  Memoir  of  Roger  Williams , 52,  109,  as  quoted  by  Trumbull,  of.  cit.y  17. 

7 Weis,  Colonial  Clergy , 139;  Sprague,  Annals , 1.  183. 


1 3 8 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

soon  removed.8  His  next  attempt  was  made  at  Nonantum  (in  Newton, 
near  the  Watertown  line)  on  28  October  1646.  This  time  he  was  ac- 
companied by  Isaac  Heath,  an  elder  of  the  Roxbury  church,  the  Rever- 
end Thomas  Shepard,  minister  at  Cambridge,  and  Major-General  Dan- 
iel Gookin,  his  friend  and  companion  in  this  work  from  beginning  to  end, 
the  historian  and  guardian  of  the  Indians.  Here  at  Nonantum  Mr.  Eliot 
founded  the  first  community  of  Christian  Indians  within  the  English  col- 
onies. These  Indians  removed  to  Natick  in  1651  where  they  were  gath- 
ered into  an  Indian  church  in  1660. 9 On  alternating  weeks  he  preached 
to  the  Natick  and  Punkapoag  Indians  for  the  next  forty  years.  For  the 
furtherance  of  this  work  of  God,  declared  Governor  Winthrop,  several 
English  colonists  came  to  hear  Mr.  Eliot  preach  to  the  natives,  and  some- 
times “the  governor  and  other  of  the  magistrates  and  elders”  came,  while 
the  Indians,  of  their  own  accord,  “began  to  repair  thither”  from  other 
places.  On  one  occasion  the  governor,  with  about  two  hundred  people, 
Indian  and  English,  were  present. 

At  these  services  Mr.  Eliot  first  proceeded  to  catechize  the  children, 
“who  were  brought  to  answer  him  some  short  questions,  whereupon  he 
gave  each  of  them  an  apple  or  a cake.”  After  this  he  began  a service  of 
worship  with  prayer  in  English.  “Then  he  took  a text,  and  read  it  first 
in  the  Indian  language,  and  after  in  English;  then  he  preached  to  them 
in  Indian  about  an  hour.”  That  the  work  had  its  humorous  side  we  learn 
from  several  long  lists  of  questions  and  answers  which  followed  the  ser- 
mon. Finally  he  concluded  with  a prayer  in  the  Indian  tongue.  At  the 
Cambridge  synod  in  1647,  Mr.  Eliot  preached  to  the  Indians  in  their 
own  language  before  the  entire  assembly.1 

We  are  apt  to  forget  sometimes  that  Eliot  did  not  do  all  this  work  un- 
aided. Thus  Mather  tells  us:  “All  the  good  men  in  the  country  were  glad 
of  his  engagement  in  such  an  undertaking,  the  ministers  especially  en- 
couraged him,  and  those  in  the  neighborhood  kindly  supplied  his  place,” 
and  performed  part  of  his  work  at  Roxbury  for  him  while  he  was  abroad 
laboring  among  the  Indians.  On  the  other  hand,  we  are  equally  apt  to 
forget  the  extraordinary  difficulties  he  must  have  encountered  as  the 
first  Englishman  who  learned  to  write  in  the  Algonquin  dialect  and  to 
speak  it  fluently.  For  the  Algonquin  was  not  a written  language.  In  order 
to  speak  to  the  natives  effectively,  he  was  obliged  to  prepare,  one  after 

8 Ebenezer  Clap,  History  of  Dorchester  (Boston,  1859),  10-13. 

9 John  Winthrop,  Journal , James  Kendall  Hosmer,  Editor  (New  York,  1908),  II. 
224,  319. 

1 Winthrop,  of.  cit.,  11.  3 1 8—321,  324. 


1948]  I he  New  England  Company  of  1649  139 

another,  catechisms,  grammars,  vocabularies,  translations  of  the  Com- 
mandments, the  Lord’s  Prayer,  the  Psalms,  sermons  and  tracts,  and  even- 
tually he  translated  the  whole  Bible  into  the  Algonquin  tongue.  In  time 
these  were  all  printed  and  are  a monument  and  a memorial  to  the  indus- 
try and  distinguished  scholarship  of  a busy  minister  in  a small  colonial 
parish.  Concerning  this  unselfish  labor,  he  wrote:  “I  diligently  marked 
the  difference  of  their  grammar  from  ours:  When  I found  the  way  of 
them,  I would  pursue  a Word,  a Noun,  a Verb,  through  all  the  varia- 
tions I could  think  of.  And  thus  I came  at  it.  We  must  not  sit  still,  and 
look  for  Miracles;  Up  and  be  doing,  and  the  Lord  will  be  with  thee. 
Prayer  and  Pains,  through  faith  in  Christ  Jesus,  will  do  anything.”2 

We  soon  find  him  ranging  farther  afield.  Each  summer  beginning  with 
1648  and  for  nearly  thirty  years  thereafter,  he  made  journeys  to  Lan- 
caster and  Lowell  and  Brookfield,  and  even  as  far  as  Woodstock,  Con- 
necticut. He  visited  regularly  all  the  praying  towns  of  eastern  Massa- 
chusetts, and  occasionally  took  his  way  through  Middleborough  or  Plym- 
outh to  visit  the  Indian  towns  on  the  Cape  and  on  Martha’s  Vineyard. 
His  benevolent  zeal  prompted  him  to  encounter  with  cheerfulness  un- 
predictable danger,  and  to  submit  to  the  most  incredible  hardships.  Once 
he  wrote  in  a letter:  “I  have  not  been  dry,  night  or  day,  from  the  third 
day  of  the  week  unto  the  sixth ; but  so  travelled,  and  at  night  pull  off  my 
boots  and  wring  my  stockings,  and  on  with  them  again,  and  so  continue. 
But  God  steps  in  and  helps.”3 

The  colonists  became  so  interested  in  the  work  that  he  was  doing  that, 
on  26  May  1647,  by  Act  of  the  General  Court,  it  was  “ordered,  that 
£10  should  be  given  Mr.  Elliot  as  a gratuity  from  this  Co’te,  in  respect 
of  his  greate  paines  & charge  in  instructing  the  Indians  in  the  knowledg 
of  God  . . . and  that  some  care  may  be  taken  of  the  Indians  on  the  Lords 
dayes.”4 

Mr.  Eliot  was  one  of  the  most  useful  preachers  in  New  England.  No 
minister  saw  his  exertions  attended  with  greater  success.  He  spoke  out 
of  the  abundance  of  his  heart,  and  his  sermons  were  appreciated  in  all 
the  churches.  “His  moral  and  religious  character  was  as  excellent  as  his 
ministerial  qualifications  were  great.”  Such  was  his  charity  that  he  gave 
to  the  poor  Indians  most  of  his  salary  of  fifty  pounds  which  he  received 

2 Walter  Eliot  Thwing,  History  of  the  First  Church  in  Roxbury  (Boston,  1908), 
25-27. 

3 Sprague,  Annalsy  1.  19—20;  Thwing,  of.  cit .,  29. 

4 Records  of  the  Colony  of  the  Massachusetts  Bay  in  New  England , Nathaniel  Brad- 
street  Shurtleff,  Editor  (Boston,  1853-1854),  11.  189. 


140  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

annually  from  the  New  England  Company  for  propagating  the  gospel. 

On  the  day  of  his  death  he  was  found  teaching  the  alphabet  to  an  In- 
dian child  at  his  bedside.  “Why  not  rest  from  your  labors  now?”  asked 
a friend.  “Because,”  replied  the  venerable  man,  “I  have  prayed  to  God 
to  render  me  useful  in  my  sphere  and  he  has  heard  my  prayer,  for  now 
that  I can  no  longer  preach,  he  leaves  me  still  strength  enough  to  teach 
this  poor  child  his  alphabet.” 

John  Eliot  died  20  May  1690  saying  that  all  his  labors  were  poor 
and  small.5 

These  early  attempts  to  convert  the  natives,  while  they  demonstrate 
the  charity  and  warmth  of  heart  of  Williams,  Mayhew,  Eliot  and  others, 
reflect  also  certain  provisions  set  forth  in  the  charters  of  the  Plymouth 
and  Massachusetts  Bay  Colonies.  For  the  grant  of  these  charters  was, 
in  fact,  contingent  upon  the  Christianizing  of  the  Indians  by  the  founders 
of  New  England. 

The  king  expressly  declared,  in  his  grant  to  the  Council  of  Plymouth 
in  1621,  that  “the  principall  effect  which  [he]  can  desire  or  expect  of  this 
action,  is  the  conversion  ...  of  the  people  of  those  parts,  unto  the  true 
worship  of  God  and  Christian  religion.” 

Governor  Edward  Winslow  and  the  people  of  Plymouth  were  strong- 
ly in  sympathy  with  this  goal.  In  his  Brief  Relation , printed  in  1622,  Gov- 
ernor Winslow  declared  that  “for  the  conversion  [of  the  natives]  we  in- 
tend to  be  as  careful  as  of  our  own  happiness;  and  as  diligent  to  provide 
them  with  tutors  for  the  . . . bringing  up  of  their  children  of  both  sexes, 
as  to  advance  any  other  business  whatsoever,  for  that  we  acknowledge 
ourselves  specially  bound  thereto.”  Until  his  death  in  1655  no  one 
worked  more  persistently  to  this  end  than  he  did,  and  it  was  in  large 
measure  due  to  him  that  the  New  England  Company  of  1649  owe^  its 
establishment. 

Again,  among  the  many  long  paragraphs  of  the  Charter  of  the  Mas- 
sachusetts Bay  Company,  one  declared  that  to  “wynn  and  incite  the  na- 
tives of  [the]  country  to  the  knowledge  and  obedience  of  the  onlie  true 
God  and  Savior  of  mankinde,  and  the  Christian  faythe,”  was,  in  the 
“royall  intention  and  the  adventurers’  free  profession,  the  frincifall  ende 
of  this  plantations  And  that  these  pledges  might  be  had  in  perpetual  re- 

5 Thwing,  of.  cit.y  33-35;  Sprague,  Annals , 1.  18-23. 

6 Records  of  the  Governor  and  Comfany  of  the  Massachusetts  Bay  in  New  Englandy 
I.  17;  Trumbull,  of.  cit.y  17,  16,  to  which  may  be  added  from  the  same  author:  Let- 
ter of  Gov.  Craddock  to  Endecott  at  Salem : “We  trust  you  will  not  be  unmindfull 
of  the  mayne  end  of  our  plantation,  by  indeavoringe  to  bring  the  Indians  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  gospell,”  and  oath  of  the  governor  and  deputy-governor,  which 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1649  14 1 

membrance,  the  seal  provided  in  England  for  the  colony  bore  an  Indian 
with  extended  hands,  with  Paul’s  words:  “Come  over  and  help  us.”7 

With  all  these  definite  aims  and  commitments,  perhaps  we  may  won- 
der why  so  little  progress  appears  to  have  been  made,  and  also  why  more 
effective  steps  were  not  at  once  taken  to  convert  the  Indians.  Actually 
there  were  some  good  reasons  for  this  state  of  affairs.  Stark  necessity  in 
the  form  of  providing  food  and  shelter  caused  our  forefathers  to  wrestle 
with  many  difficulties  unforeseen  by  the  king  and  those  who  drew  up 
the  charters.  Self-preservation  was  plainly  the  first  duty  of  the  colonists.8 

Ignorance  of  the  Indian  language  was  another  impediment,  and  it 
was  natural  that  many  thought  that  the  Indians  must  first  be  taught  Eng- 
lish before  they  could  receive  religious  instruction.  President  Henry  Dun- 
ster  of  Harvard  College  was  one  of  the  first  to  take  a realistic  attitude  in 
this  matter.  He  insisted  that  “the  way  to  instruct  the  Indians  must  be  in 
their  own  language y not  English.”9 

Then,  too,  John  Eliot  believed  that  civilization  must  precede  Christi- 
anity for  the  natives,  or  at  least  go  along  with  it,  for  “such  as  are  so  ex- 
tremely degenerate  must  be  brought  to  some  civility  before  religion  can 
prosper  or  the  Word  take  place.”1  Concerning  this,  Trumbull  wisely 
remarks:  “Whatever  anticipation  of  an  eager  acceptance  of  the  Gospel 
by  the  natives  may  have  been  entertained  by  the  colonists  before  coming 
to  New  England,  was  dispelled  by  nearer  acquaintance  with  Indian  life 
and  character.  For  beads  and  strong-water,  cloth  and  fire-arms,  the  red 
man’s  receptivity  was  ample.  To  the  new  religion  he  manifested  indiffer- 
ence if  not  aversion.”2 

This  was  true,  certainly,  of  all  the  Indians  for  a considerable  period 
of  time.  All  efforts  of  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  to  convert  Massasoit  and 
Philip,  and  their  whole  tribe,  were  calmly  but  firmly  repelled.  The  Wam- 
panoags  were  friendly  with  the  Pilgrims,  yet  were  not  only  afraid  of 
Christianity,  but  definitely  hostile  to  it.  Uncas  and  the  Pequots  refused 
to  have  anything  to  do  with  it.  The  Narragansetts  and  the  other  tribes 
of  Rhode  Island  and  eastern  Connecticut  were  wholly  uncooperative, 
even  with  their  good  friend  Roger  Williams.  The  Indians  on  the  Cape, 
those  around  Boston,  and  those  to  the  north  and  west  of  that  town,  were 
far  from  cordial  to  Christianity  for  many  years  after  the  settlement  of 
the  English.  Only  when  Williams,  Mayhew  and  Eliot  began  to  speak 

bound  them  to  do  their  “best  endeavor  to  draw  on  the  natives  of  this  country,  called 
New  England,  to  the  knowledge  of  the  true  God.” 

7 Trumbull,  of.  cit.,  16.  8 Ibid.y  1 6.  9 Lechford,  Plaine  Dealing , 53. 

1 The  Day  Breaking , &c.,  20.  2 Trumbull,  of.  cit.,  18—19. 


142  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

to  the  natives  in  their  own  language,  and  went  out  of  their  way  to  be 
friendly  to  them,  did  a few  of  the  Indians  deign  to  pay  attention  to  the 
missionary  endeavors  of  the  whites. 

But  whatever  the  failings  of  others,  “Mr.  Eliot  engaged  in  this  great 
work  of  preaching  unto  the  Indians  upon  a very  . . . sincere  account:— 
his  compassion  and  ardent  affection  to  them  ...  in  their  great  blindness 
and  ignorance;— and  to  endeavour,  so  far  as  in  him  lay,”  to  fulfill  “the 
covenant  and  promise,  that  New  England  people  had  made  unto  their 
king,  when  he  granted  them  their  patent.”3 

While  Eliot  and  Mayhew  were  busily  engaged  with  the  conversion  of 
the  Indians,  Governor  Edward  Winslow,  agent  for  the  Plymouth  and 
Massachusetts  Bay  Colonies,  sought  to  obtain  subscriptions  in  England 
to  continue  this  good  work.  The  New  England  colonists  were  particu- 
larly indebted  to  him  because,  during  the  weeks  of  nervous  tension  fol- 
lowing the  execution  of  King  Charles  I,  Governor  Winslow  was  able 
to  cause  Parliament  to  vote  the  passage  of  his  “Act  for  the  promoting 
and  Propagating  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  in  New  England.”4 

Omitting  the  very  interesting  preamble,  we  come  to  these  words:  “Be 
it  therefore  enacted  by  this  present  Parliament,  that  for  the  furthering  so 
good  a work  there  shall  be  a Corporation  in  England  ...  by  the  name  of 
the  President  and  Society  for  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in 
New  England  . . . consisting  of  sixteen,  viz.  a president,  treasurer,  and 
fourteen  assistants;  and  that  William  Steel,  Esq.,  Herbert  Pelham,  Esq., 
James  Sherley,  Abraham  Babington,  Robert  Houghton,  Richard  Hutch- 
inson, George  Dun,  Robert  Tomson,  William  Mullins,  John  Hodgson, 
Edward  Parks,  Edward  Clud,  Richard  Floyd,  Thomas  Aires,  John 
Stone,  and  Edward  Winslow,  citizens  of  London,  be  the  first  sixteen 
persons;  out  of  whom,  the  said  sixteen  persons,  or  the  greater  number  of 
them,  shall  choose  one  of  the  said  sixteen  to  be  president,  another  to  be 
treasurer.  They  or  any  nine  of  them,  to  appoint  a common  seal.  . . .5 

Moreover,  “the  Commissioners  of  the  United  Colonies  of  New  Eng- 
land in  New  England  for  the  time  being  . . . are  hereby  ordered  and  ap- 
pointed to  dispose  of  the  moneys  [paid  unto  them  by  the  Treasurer]  in 
such  manner  as  shall  best  and  principally  conduce  to  the  preaching  and 
propagating  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  amongst  the  Natives;  and  also 

3 Gookin,  “Historical  Collections,”  &c.,  in  1 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  I.  170. 

4 Winship,  New  England  Comfany}  xvj  Gookin,  of.  cit.,  212. 

5 Thomas  Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts , 1 (3rd  edition,  Boston,  1795), 
150—160.  Pelham,  Hutchinson,  Thompson,  Floyd  and  Governor  Winslow  had  lived 
in  New  England  j James  Sherley  was  interested  in  Plymouth  Colony. 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1649  143 

for  maintaining  of  Schools  and  Nurseries  of  Learning,  for  the  better  ed- 
ucation of  the  children  of  the  Natives.”6 

Finally,  the  Act  ordered  a general  collection  to  be  made  for  the  pur- 
poses aforesaid  in  and  through  all  the  counties,  cities,  towns  and  parishes 
of  England  and  Wales.7 

This  Act,  and  the  New  England  Company  of  1649  which  it  estab- 
lished, was  thus  passed  by  a Puritan  Parliament;  the  collections  were  to 
be  made  from  the  Puritan  parish  churches  throughout  England  and 
Wales;  and  the  officers  of  the  Company  in  England  were  Puritans  then 
living  in  the  city  of  London,  of  whom  no  less  than  five  had  lived  in  New 
England.8  Furthermore,  the  money  collected  was  to  be  sent  to  and  ex- 
pended by  the  Commissioners  of  the  United  Colonies  in  New  England, 
all  of  whom  were  required  by  law  to  be  members  of  the  churches  of 
these  colonies,  which  at  that  time  were  all  Congregational,  there  being 
churches  of  no  other  denomination  in  those  colonies.  Finally,  the  New 
England  missionaries  to  the  Indians  were  Congregational  ministers  of 
the  Puritan  and  Pilgrim  churches  of  New  England,  and  the  Indians, 
when  converted,  became  thereby  members  of  Indian  Congregational 
churches  and  congregations  in  the  Indian  praying  towns.  With  such  a 
strong  Puritan  background,  the  legal  existence  of  the  Company  under 
this  Act  naturally  and  automatically  ceased  when  Charles  II  was  pro- 
claimed King  on  8 May  1660. 

After  this  date  more  than  a year  went  by  during  which  the  members 
of  the  old  society  ceased  to  function  publicly.  In  the  meantime,  those 
members  offensive  to  the  new  government  under  Charles  II  quietly 
withdrew.  A royal  charter  was  issued  on  1 February  1661/2  in  which 
the  membership  was  enlarged  from  sixteen  to  forty-five,  the  new  mem- 
bers chosen  being  more  acceptable  to  the  government  of  Charles  II.  Mr. 
Robert  Boyle,  brother  of  the  Earl  of  Cork,  was  named  ato  be  the  first 
and  present  Governor”  and  the  law  courts  decreed  that  the  former  prop- 
erties of  the  Society  might  be  retained  by  the  new  Company. 

The  new  charter  provided  that  “there  be,  and  forever  hereafter  shall 
be,  within  this  our  kingdom  of  England,  a Society  or  Company  ...  by  the 
name  of  the  Company  for  Propagation  of  the  Gospell  in  New 

6 Winship,  The  New  England  Comfany,  xvii. 

7 From  a breviate  of  the  Act  in  Hutchinson,  History , I.  153—154.  Mr.  Winship 
gives  much  longer  excerpts  in  his  New  England  Comfany  of  1649  and  John  Eliot , 
xiv-xix,  q.v. ; Hazard’s  Historical  Collections , I.  635;  G.  D.  Scull,  “The  Society 
for  Promoting  and  Propagating  the  Gospel  in  New  England,”  New  England  Hist.- 
Gen.  Reg.,  xxxvi.  157-158. 

8 See  note  23  above. 


144  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

England,  and  the  Parts  Adjacent,  in  America.”  The  usefulness 
of  this  last  phrase  came  a century  later  when,  in  1786,  the  Company 
transferred  its  activities  to  Canada.9  But  the  new  Company  retained  for 
a score  of  years  the  services  of  the  Puritan  Commissioners  of  the  United 
Colonies  in  New  England. 

The  dangers  to  which  the  colonists  of  New  England  were  exposed, 
especially  from  the  French  in  Canada,  the  uncertain  temper  of  the  In- 
dians to  the  north  and  west,  and,  indeed,  from  the  Indians  within  their 
borders,  had  resulted  in  the  adoption,  in  1643,  °f  certain  articles  of  con- 
federation by  the  colonies  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  Plymouth,  Connecticut 
and  New  Haven.  By  these  articles  the  above-named  colonies  entered  into 
an  offensive  and  defensive  league,  the  cost  of  wars  to  be  borne  in  pro- 
portion to  the  male  inhabitants  of  each  colony,  Massachusetts  to  furnish 
one  hundred  men  and  the  others  forty-five  each.  This  confederacy  was 
acknowledged  and  countenanced  by  Charles  I,  Cromwell  and  Charles 
II  from  its  beginning  until  1686  when  a commission  from  King  James 
II  revoked  its  powers  and  legal  existence. 

Each  colony  elected  two  commissioners  annually  to  act  together  with 
the  others  as  a unit  in  dealing  with  the  Indians.  They  chose  a President 
from  among  their  number  and  met  during  the  first  part  of  September  each 
year  at  Boston,  Plymouth,  New  Haven  and  Hartford  in  rotation  until 
1664,  after  which  time  they  met  every  three  years,  the  Massachusetts 
members  attending  to  matters  in  the  meantime. 

After  1649  supervision  and  distribution  of  funds  for  the  Christian- 
izing of  the  Indians  became  a special  and  principal  part  of  the  business 
of  the  Commissioners  and  was  efficiently  performed  by  them  until  after 
King  Philip’s  War  when  the  Indians  were  so  much  reduced  in  strength 
and  numbers  that  the  work  became  less  vital,  and  the  gospelizing  of  the 
natives  also  received  less  of  their  attention.  Each  year  the  Commissioners 
sent  a letter  to  the  Governor  and  Company  in  London,  giving  a report 
of  their  activities  during  the  year,  with  their  financial  accounts,  and  fre- 
quently reports  from  the  missionaries  in  the  field  were  also  enclosed  with 
the  annual  letters.  By  1680  the  affairs  of  the  New  England  Company 
were  practically  in  the  hands  of  the  Massachusetts  and  Plymouth  com- 
missioners with  the  occasional  assistance  of  a member  from  Connecticut. 
New  boards  were  appointed  in  1685,  1699  and  1704,  each  containing 
some  of  the  former  commissioners,  but  supplemented  from  time  to  time 
as  need  arose  with  members  of  the  clergy,  magistrates,  governing  officials 

9 Winship,  of.  cit .,  vii,  xix-xx,  xxxvii-xliv;  the  new  charter  is  printed  in  the  ap- 
pendix to  Birch’s  Life  of  Boyle , 319-335.  Gookin,  of.  cit.,  1.  213— 219. 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1649  145 

and  Boston  merchants,  who  remained  in  office  until  removal  or  death,  up 
to  the  time  of  the  American  Revolution.1 

From  1649  to  1685  these  commissioners  were  the  principal  men  and 
the  most  distinguished  group  of  citizens  of  the  four  colonies.  Thereafter, 
until  1775,  they  were  chiefly  from  Boston  and  vicinity.  Among  them 
were  twenty-three  colonial  governors  and  ten  deputy-governors,  while 
the  rest  were  high  ranking  military  officers,  clergymen,  councillors, 
judges  and  merchants.  Their  secretaries  and  treasurers  were  highly  com- 
petent gentlemen,  sympathetic  to  the  needs  of  the  missionaries  and  the 
Indians.  Since  they  were  the  the  chief  administrative  officers  of  the  Com- 
pany in  New  England  for  a century  and  a quarter  they  deserve  to  be 
named:  Edward  Rawson,  William  Stoughton,  Samuel  Sewall,  Adam 
Winthrop,  Anthony  Stoddard  and  Andrew  Oliver. 

In  the  seventeenth  century  Major-General  Humphrey  Atherton,  Ma- 
jor-General Daniel  Gookin  and  Captain  Thomas  Prentice  served  suc- 
cessively for  life  as  Superintendents  of  the  Indians  of  Massachusetts  by 
commission  from  the  General  Court  of  this  colony. 

Before  discussing  the  Act  of  1649  we  reviewed  briefly  the  missionary 
endeavors  of  Roger  Williams  and  Thomas  Mayhew,  Jr.,  together  with 
a longer  glimpse  of  the  work  of  John  Eliot  and  the  efforts  of  Governor 
Winslow  to  obtain  assistance  in  England  towards  the  continuation  of  this 
good  work.  We  must  now  summarize  the  missionary  labors  of  several 
Massachusetts  clergymen  who  were  able,  with  the  assistance  of  the  New 
England  Company,  to  continue  and  amplify  their  work  in  the  gospelizing 
of  the  Indians  of  this  colony. 

To  understand  the  spiritual  ascendency  of  the  Mayhews  over  the  In- 
dians, we  must  glance  for  a moment  at  their  political  standing  at  Martha’s 
Vineyard.  Thomas  Mayhew,  the  elder,  a merchant  in  Southampton, 
England,  settled  at  Watertown,  Massachusetts,  in  1631.  He  soon  pur- 
chased the  English  and  Indian  rights  to  the  island  of  Martha’s  Vineyard, 
Nantucket  and  the  Elizabeth  Isles  and  settled  on  the  Vineyard  where  he 
became  Governor,  Chief  Justice  and  the  Lord  of  the  Manor  of  Tisbury 
until  his  death  in  1682.  He  was  succeeded  as  Chief  Magistrate  by  his 
grandson,  Major  Matthew  Mayhew,  who  also  became  Lord  of  the  Man- 
or of  Tisbury.  By  1690  every  available  office  on  the  island  was  filled  by  a 
member  of  the  Mayhew  family.  But  soon  after  the  death  of  the  elder 
Thomas,  his  progeny  turned  to  more  spiritual  offices. 

When  the  Reverend  Thomas  Mayhew,  Jr.,  was  lost  at  sea  in  1657 
the  Indians  begged  the  old  Governor  of  the  same  name  to  continue  the 

1 Hutchinson,  History , 1.  118-120,  153-160. 


146  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

ministrations  of  his  son,  which  he  did  with  commendable  success  until 
his  death  at  the  age  of  ninety  years.  Following  him,  the  Reverend  John 
Mayhew,  son  of  the  younger  Thomas,  devoted  his  life  to  the  Indians.  He, 
in  turn,  was  succeeded  by  his  son,  the  Reverend  Experience  Mayhew,  a 
very  scholarly  man  though  not  a college  graduate,  who,  in  1709,  trans- 
lated the  Psalms  into  the  Indian  language,  and  who  received  an  honor- 
ary degree  of  Master  of  Arts  from  Harvard  College  in  1723.  Mr.  May- 
hew also  kept  a journal  of  his  two  missionary  visitations  to  the  Indians  of 
Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut  in  1713  and  1714.2  He  published  his 
Indian  Converts  in  1727,  being  the  lives  of  thirty  Indian  ministers  and 
eighty  other  pious  Indians  on  Martha’s  Vineyard,  Nantucket  and  the 
neighboring  Elizabeth  Islands.3 

Three  sons  of  Experience  Mayhew  prepared  for  the  ministry,  the 
eldest,  Nathan,  dying  as  a very  young  man.  The  second  was  the  Rever- 
end Jonathan  Mayhew,  D.D.,  minister  of  the  West  Church  in  Boston, 
celebrated  as  an  orator  and  patriot.  The  Reverend  Zachariah  Mayhew, 
youngest  of  the  three,  then  began  his  lifelong  service  as  a preacher  of  the 
gospel  to  the  Indians  of  Chilmark  and  Gay  Head.  He  died  in  1806,  the 
last  of  his  name  to  serve  in  this  capacity,  thereby  bringing  to  an  end  the 
period  of  163  years  devoted  by  members  of  the  family  to  missionary  work 
among  the  natives  of  this  island.4 

John  Eliot  wrote  of  them:  “If  any  of  the  human  race  ever  enjoyed  the 
luxury  of  doing  good,  if  any  Christian  ever  could  declare  what  it  is  to 
have  peace  ...  we  may  believe  that  was  the  happiness  of  the  Mayhews.”5 

While  most  of  the  Mayhews  remained  on  one  island  and  the  Tuppers 
served  one  church,  the  Reverend  John  Cotton,  Jr.,  of  Plymouth  taught 
in  all  the  praying  towns  of  Plymouth  Colony  from  Provincetown  to  Mid- 
dleborough  and  from  Pembroke  to  Sakonnet,  walking  or  riding  many 
scores  of  miles  each  year,  sleeping  often  in  the  wigwams  of  the  Indians 
and  sharing  their  slender  meals.  Mr.  Cotton,  who  was  the  son  of  the 
famous  Boston  divine  of  the  same  name,  was  called  in  1664  to  preach  to 

2 Printed  in  Ford,  Some  Correspondence , &c.,  pp.  97—127. 

3 Now  a very  rare  volume.  A copy  may  be  found  at  the  American  Antiquarian  So- 
ciety. 

4 Much  of  the  above  data  relating-  to  the  Mayhews  comes  from  a brief  resume  of  a 
paper  read  before  the  annual  meeting-  of  the  Society  of  the  Descendants  of  the  Co- 
lonial Clergy  at  King’s  Chapel,  Boston,  4 May  1936,  by  the  Reverend  Abbot  Peter- 
son, D.D.,  on  “The  Mayhew  Oligarchy.”  For  further  discussion  in  great  detail  see 
Col.  Charles  Edward  Banks,  The  History  of  Martha’s  Vineyard , 3 volumes. 

5 An  appendix  to  Mayhew’s  Indian  Converts , 1727,  by  Thomas  Prince,  gives  bio- 
graphical details  of  the  lives  of  the  elder  Mayhews  and  their  work  among  the  Indians. 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1649  147 

the  English  at  Edgartown.  His  nephew,  Cotton  Mather,  tells  us  that 
soon  “He  hired  an  Indian  . . . for  Fijty  Days,  ...  to  teach  him  the  Indian 
Tongue;  but  his  Knavish  Tutor  . . . ran  away  before  Twenty  Days  were 
out.  However,  in  this  time  he  had  profited  so  far,  that  he  could  quickly 
Preach  unto  the  Natives”  which  he  did  for  about  two  years,  assisting  Mr. 
Mayhew.  He  was  ordained  at  Plymouth  in  1669,  where  he  remained 
until  1697.  Besides  this  charge  he  was  missionary  to  the  Indians  of  Plym- 
outh and  vicinity.  Thus  in  1674,  he  preached  regularly  at  Titicut  and 
Acushnet,  besides  supervising  and  occasionally  preaching  in  the  thirty- 
two  praying  villages  of  Plymouth  Colony  and  on  the  Cape,  having  sev- 
eral hundred  praying  Indians  under  his  charge.  In  1685  Governor 
Thomas  Hinckley  reported  to  the  New  England  Company  that,  besides 
officiating  in  Plymouth,  Cotton  instructed  the  Indians  at  Saltwater  Pond, 
at  Middleborough  and  at  Pembroke. 

His  son,  Josiah  Cotton,  said  of  him : “My  father  was  of  a strong  healthy 
constitution,  so  that  he  was  not  hindered  by  sickness  for  above  one  day 
from  his  public  labors  for  20  to  30  years  together.” 

The  Reverend  Thomas  Prince  wrote  that  Mr.  Cotton,  being  well  ac- 
quainted with  the  Indian  language,  was  desired  by  the  Indian  Commis- 
sioners to  correct  Mr.  Eliot’s  (1663)  version  of  the  Bible.  His  method 
was:  “while  a good  Reader  in  his  study  read  the  English  Bible  aloud, 
Mr.  Cotton  silently  look’d  along  in  the  same  place  in  the  Indian  Bible:  & 
where  he  thot  of  Indian  words  which  he  judg’d  could  express  the  sense 
better,  There  He  substituted  them,  & this  2d  Edition  is  according  to  Mr. 
Cotton’s  correction.” 

Again,  in  1688,  Mr.  Eliot  wrote  to  the  Honorable  Robert  Boyle,  Gov- 
ernor of  the  New  England  Company:  “I  must  commit  to”  Mr.  Cotton 
“the  care  and  labour  of  the  revisal  of  two  other  small  treatises,  viz:  Mr. 
Shepheard’s  Sincere  Convert  and  Sound  Believer , which  I translated  into  the 
Indian  language  many  years  since.” 

A number  of  Mr.  Cotton’s  reports  to  the  New  England  Company  in 
London  and  to  the  Commissioners  at  Boston  have  survived  and  may  be 
found  in  print. 

His  son,  Josiah  Cotton  of  Plymouth,  labored  as  an  Indian  missionary 
in  Plymouth  Colony  and  on  the  Cape  from  1707  to  1744  and  compiled 
a dictionary  of  the  Indian  language.  Another  son,  Roland  Cotton,  was 
settled  as  minister  of  the  Sandwich  church,  but  also  worked  among  the 
neighboring  Indians  as  a missionary,  1691-1722. 6 

Like  the  Eliots,  the  Mayhews,  the  Cottons  and  the  Tuppers,  several 

6 Sibley,  Harvard  Graduates , I.  496—508 ; Weis,  Colonial  Clergy  of  N.  E.y  6 2—64. 


148  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

generations  of  the  Bourne  family  were  also  Indian  missionaries.  The  first, 
the  Reverend  Richard  Bourne,  settled  in  Sandwich  about  1641,  where  he 
was  Deputy  to  the  General  Court  and  member  of  the  Council  of  War. 
This  noble-hearted  man  began  his  labors  for  the  temporal  and  spiritual 
good  of  the  Indians  soon  after  his  arrival  at  Sandwich.  About  the  year 
1660,  at  his  own  expense,  he  obtained  from  the  Indian  owners  a deed  of 
sixteen  square  miles  of  land  for  the  benefit  of  the  Mashpee  Indians,  that 
they  might  have  a place  where  they  could  remain  in  peace  and  security 
from  generation  to  generation.  The  deed  was  so  drawn  that  “no  part  or 
parcel  of  the  lands  could  be  bought  by  or  sold  to  any  white  person  or  per- 
sons, without  the  consent  of  all  the  said  Indians, ” and  the  deed  was  rati- 
fied by  the  General  Court  of  Plymouth  Colony.  Here  at  Mashpee  Mr. 
Bourne  was  ordained  minister  by  Eliot  and  Cotton,  on  17  August  1670, 
and  at  the  same  time  the  Indian  church  at  Mashpee  was  gathered.  It  con- 
sisted of  his  disciples  and  converts,  amongst  whom  he  had  preached  and 
worked  since  1662,  and  so  continued  until  his  death  in  1682.  Much  of 
this  time,  too,  he  had  general  oversight  of  the  praying  towns  on  the  Cape. 

He  was  followed  by  his  grandson,  the  Honorable  Ezra  Bourne,  Judge 
and  Chief  Justice  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  for  the  County  of 
Barnstable,  who  served  as  a missionary  among  the  Mashpee  Indians, 
though  probably  not  ordained,  until  his  death  in  1764.  His  son,  the  Rev- 
erend Joseph  Bourne,  Harvard  College,  1722,  was  ordained  at  Mashpee, 
26  November  1729,  and  preached  to  the  natives  here  until  1742,  after 
which  he  served  as  a missionary  and  guardian  to  the  Cape  Indians  for  the 
remainder  of  his  life,  dying  in  the  year  1767. 

Barber  declared  in  1834:  “This  is  the  largest  remnant  of  all  the  tribes 
of  red  men  west  of  the  Penobscot  River,  who,  but  a little  more  than  two 
centuries  ago,  were  fee-simple  proprietors  of  the  whole  territory  of  New 
England.”  The  population  of  Mashpee  in  1930  was  361,  all  of  some  In- 
dian descent. 

The  Mashpee  church  is  important  because  it  was  the  mother  church  of 
the  many  Indian  praying  towns  on  the  Cape.  In  1674  there  were  twenty- 
seven  in  full  communion  and  ninety  baptized  persons  in  this  church,  and 
350  praying  Indians  on  the  Cape,  living  in  twenty-two  praying  villages, 
of  which  the  largest  and  most  important  was  Mashpee. 

Besides  preaching  to  the  Mashpee  Indians,  Richard  Bourne  was  super- 
visor, preacher  and  teacher  to  these  other  praying  towns,  as  were  his 
successors  in  the  Mashpee  church.7 

Like  the  other  missionary  families,  the  Tupper  family  furnished  sev- 
7 Weis,  Colonial  Clergy  of  N.  E.}  36-37. 


1 948 ] The  New  England  Company  of  1 649  149 

eral  generations  of  missionaries.  They  founded  the  Indian  church  at 
Herring  Ponds,  Sagamore,  in  the  northern  part  of  Sandwich  (now 
Bourne),  and  extending  into  the  southern  part  of  the  town  of  Plymouth. 
A meeting  house,  built  for  these  Indians  by  the  personal  contribution  of 
Judge  Samuel  Sewall,  was  finished  here  in  1691. 

Captain  Thomas  Tupper,  born  in  Sandwich,  England,  1578,  settled 
in  Sandwich,  Plymouth  Colony,  1637,  where  he  became  the  first  minis- 
ter and  missionary  at  Herring  Ponds  from  1658  until  his  death  in  1676, 
aged  ninety-eight  years.  He  also  served  the  town  of  Sandwich  as  Captain 
and  Deputy  to  the  General  Court  for  nineteen  years.  Captain  Thomas 
Tupper,  Jr.,  succeeded  his  father  as  minister  and  missionary  to  these  In- 
dians from  1676  until  his  death  in  1706,  also  serving  as  Captain,  mem- 
ber of  the  Council  of  War  for  Plymouth  Colony,  selectman  for  fourteen 
years,  town  clerk,  and  Deputy  to  the  General  Court  for  eight  years.  He 
married  Martha  Mayhew  of  the  missionary  family  of  that  name  on  Mar- 
tha’s Vineyard.  Their  son,  Eldad  Tupper,  appointed  to  act  for  the  In- 
dians here  as  minister  and  missionary  among  them,  though  probably  not 
ordained,  died  at  Sandwich  in  1750.  His  son,  Elisha  Tupper,  born  at 
Sandwich,  1707,  succeeded  as  minister  and  missionary  at  Herring  Ponds 
from  1739  to  1787,  dying  at  the  age  of  eighty  years.  Four  generations  of 
Tuppers  served  this  church  129  years.  In  1792  one  hundred  and  twenty 
Indians  remained  here.8 

Last  of  the  missionaries  of  whom  we  must  speak  is  the  Reverend  Sam- 
uel Treat,  who  labored  among  the  Indians  at  the  eastern  end  of  the  Cape, 
preaching  to  them  in  their  own  language  for  forty-five  years  until  his 
death  in  1717.  The  Nauset  Indians  were  living  in  1685  in  Provincetown, 
Truro,  Wellfleet,  Eastham  and  Orleans;  the  Monomoy  Indians  in  Chat- 
ham; and  the  Potanumoquut  Indians  in  Orleans  and  Harwich.  Together 
they  numbered  about  246  souls  in  1674,  though  Mr.  Treat  declared  that 
there  were  five  hundred  of  them  in  1693. 

Mr.  Treat  made  himself  so  perfectly  acquainted  with  their  language 
that  he  was  able  to  speak  and  write  it  with  great  fluency.  Once  a month 
he  preached  in  the  several  villages.  At  other  times  four  Indian  preachers, 
whom  he  had  trained,  read  to  their  congregations  the  sermons  he  had 
written  for  them.  He  translated  the  Confession  oj  Faith  into  the  Nauset  di- 
alect, which  was  printed.  He  visited  his  charges  in  their  wigwams,  but  be- 
fore his  death  a fatal  disease  swept  away  a great  number  of  them.  In 
1764  there  remained  four  Indians  in  Eastham,  eleven  in  Wellfleet,  and 


8 Weis,  Colonial  Clergy  of  N.  E.,  209. 


150  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

ninety-one  in  Harwich;  but  by  1800  only  three  remained  in  Harwich  and 
one  in  Truro.9 

Time  will  not  permit  us  to  review  the  lives  of  many  another  worthy, 
interesting  as  they  are.  For  we  must  now  ask  the  question:  “ What  did  the 
New  England  Company  oj  1649  accomplish?” 

For  nearly  half  a century  the  Reverend  John  Eliot  worked  unselfishly 
and  unsparingly  among  the  Indians.  Six  generations  of  missionary  May- 
hews  labored  and  preached  and  died  among  the  natives  of  Martha’s  Vine- 
yard and  Nantucket.  The  Reverend  John  Cotton,  Jr.,  and  his  sons  Josiah 
and  Roland,  inspected  the  praying  towns  of  Plymouth  and  the  Cape,  vis- 
iting and  preaching  among  them  for  nearly  a century.  Four  generations 
of  Tuppers  supervised  and  preached  to  the  Indians  at  Herring  Ponds. 
Three  generations  of  Bournes  ministered  to  the  church  at  Mashpee  and 
throughout  the  Cape  region,  while  fifty  more  missionaries  gave  part  of 
their  lives  to  this  good  work  in  several  sections  of  the  Commonwealth. 

Most  of  these  pioneer  missionaries  selected  and  trained  able  native  as- 
sistants, some  as  circuit  teachers  and  preachers  in  the  praying  towns,  and 
others  as  settled  pastors  of  the  Indian  churches.  As  the  Indian  population 
of  Massachusetts  shrank  in  numbers  with  the  passing  years,  fewer  native 
preachers  were  available.  Thereupon  neighboring  clergymen  were  per- 
suaded to  preach  to  the  Indians  for  another  generation  or  two  until  1786, 
when  the  Corporation  in  London  transferred  its  activities  to  the  “parts 
adjacent”  in  Canada. 

Early  in  its  history  Harvard  College  was  granted  money  by  the  New 
England  Company  to  educate  Indians  for  the  ministry  among  their  own 
people,  a dormitory  at  the  college  was  built  to  house  them,  money  was 
provided  for  books  and  small  libraries,  many  religious  tracts  were  printed 
in  English  and  in  the  Algonquin  language,  as  well  as  John  Eliot’s  trans- 
lations of  the  Bible,  salaries  were  paid  to  most  of  the  English  missionaries 
and  native  preachers  by  the  New  England  commissioners,  and  smaller 
payments  were  made  as  time  went  on  to  a steadily  increasing  number  of 
other  clergymen  engaged  in  part  time  work,  and  to  deserving  natives.1 

From  1649  to  1775  eighty-three  Commissioners  managed  the  affairs 
of  the  London  Corporation  in  New  England.  There  were  seventeen  In- 
dian churches  in  Massachusetts,  five  more  in  Rhode  Island  and  Connecti- 
cut, ninety-one  praying  towns  in  New  England  and  four  early  Roman 
Catholic  missions  in  Maine.  Of  all  these,  only  the  churches  at  Mashpee 
and  Gay  Head  survive  today.  Seventy-two  New  England  clergymen 

9 Weis,  op.  cit.y  208  j Sprague,  Annals , 1.  183-186,  cf.  1845  Gookin. 

1 Gookin,  op.  cit.y  1.  212— 213. 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1 649  1 5 1 

were  missionaries  and  preachers,  and  133  Indians  preached  in  the  various 
churches  and  praying  towns. 

Probably  the  year  1675  marked  the  high  point  of  this  whole  missionary 
enterprise,  for  after  that  period  the  Indians  began  to  disappear,  largely 
because  of  drink  and  tuberculosis,  and  because  they  were  not  able  to  stand 
up  under  the  civilization  imported  by  the  colonists.  Today  probably  not 
a single  person  of  pure  Indian  descent  remains  in  New  England,  and  those 
Indians  who  have  survived  are  of  mixed  origin  in  whom  Negro  and  Port- 
uguese blood  forms  a considerable  factor.2 

During  its  long  existence  the  New  England  Company  has  been  severe- 
ly criticized  from  time  to  time  by  persons  ignorant  of  its  true  character,  or 
by  others  who  were  jealous  of  those  in  authority.  But,  as  Mr.  Winship 
declares,  “The  dominating  impression  left  upon  a reader  of  the  letters 
that  passed  between  Corporation  and  Commissioners  during  the  Society’s 
first  decades  is  one  of  high  integrity  and  serious  consideration  of  the  obli- 
gations assumed  by  those  who  had  undertaken  this  trust.”3  In  April, 
1651,  the  Corporation  wrote,  “ ’Tis  strange  to  see  what  and  how  many 
objections  arise  against  the  work,  some  from  ill  management  of  former 
gifts  bestowed  on  the  country  of  New  England  . . . some  upon  ourselves, 
the  Corporation,  as  if  we  had  so  much  per  pound  of  what  is  collected  or 
might  feast  ourselves  liberally  therewith,  whereas  through  mercy  we  nev- 
er yet  eat  or  drank  of  the  fruit  of  it;  and  neither  have  had  or  expect  a 
penny  or  pennyworth  for  all  the  pains  we  shall  take.”4 

Governor  Thomas  Hutchinson  remarked  in  1765,  in  his  History  oj 
Massachusetts:  “Perhaps  no  fund  of  this  nature  has  ever  been  more  faith- 
fully applied  to  the  purposes  for  which  it  was  raised.”5  This  is  high  praise 
from  an  astute  observer  whose  own  father  had  been  a commissioner  of 
the  Company  for  many  years,  and  who  was  himself  intimately  acquainted 
with  all  of  the  commissioners  for  at  least  a generation. 


2 During  the  discussion  which  followed  the  reading  of  this  paper  at  the  meeting  of 
the  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  on  23  Dec.  1948  one  of  the  gentlemen  present 
declared  that  some  of  the  Maine  Indians  were  still  of  pure  native  stock.  The  present 
writer  is  very  glad  to  note  this  correction,  though  no  disparagement  was  intended 
by  his  remark.  He  has  known  several  Gay  Head  Indians  for  whom  he  has  the  high- 
est respect.  Note  also  the  last  paragraph  concerning  the  Gay  Head  Church  (No.  33 
in  the  appendix  below).  Concerning  that  paragraph,  it  may  be  said  that  these  were 
descendants  of  the  original  stock  of  whom  even  Canonicus  could  be  proud.  F.L.W. 

3 Winship,  of.  cit.,  lii. 

4 Winship,  of.  cit.,  liii. 

5 Hutchinson,  History , 1.  155W. 


1 5 2 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

The  Successors  oj  the  New  England  Company  oj  1649 

In  1762  one  hundred  and  four  of  the  leading  clergymen,  colonial  of- 
ficials, public-spirited  citizens  and  merchants  of  Massachusetts,  who  had 
the  welfare  of  the  Indians  very  much  at  heart,  organized  a “Society  for 
Propagating  Christian  Knowledge  among  the  Indians  of  North  Ameri- 
ca,” which  was  duly  chartered  by  the  Massachusetts  Legislature.6  All  of 
the  Commissioners  of  the  old  New  England  Company  then  living  were 
named  as  incorporators.  These  were:  the  Reverend  Andrew  Eliot, 
D.D.,  the  Reverend  Thomas  Foxcroft,  the  Reverend  Jonathan  May- 
hew,  D.D.,  the  Honorable  Thomas  Hubbard,  Treasurer  of  Harvard  Col- 
lege, and  the  Honorable  Andrew  Oliver,  Secretary  and  Lieutenant- 
Governor  of  Massachusetts.  Secretary  Oliver’s  name  heads  the  long  list, 
and  he  is  known  to  have  been  very  deeply  interested  in  the  promotion  of 
the  proposed  society.  The  government  of  King  George  III,  however, 
disapproved  of  it,  and  the  organization  was  therefore  obliged  to  disband. 

Twenty-five  years  later,  at  the  conclusion  of  the  Revolutionary  strug- 
gle with  Great  Britain  (the  New  England  Company  for  the  Propaga- 
tion of  the  Gospel  among  the  Indians  having  abandoned  its  work  in  the 
United  States  in  1786),  seven  members  of  the  former,  disallowed  “Soci- 
ety for  Promoting  Christian  Knowledge”  joined  with  others,  in  1787, 
in  the  formation  of  the  present  “Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel 
among  the  Indians  and  Others  in  North  America.”7  This  society  was 
at  once  incorporated  by  the  General  Court  of  Massachusetts  and  is  still 
flourishing  at  a ripe  old  age  of  more  than  160  years.  The  seven  members 
of  the  new  society  who  had  belonged  to  the  disbanded  organization  of 
1762  were:  Governor  James  Bowdoin,  the  Honorable  Samuel  Dexter, 
Lieutenant-Governor  Moses  Gill,  the  Honorable  William  Hyslop,  Dea- 
con Jonathan  Mason,  Lieutenant-Governor  William  Phillips  and  Dea- 
con Ebenezer  Storer.  Probably  none  of  the  other  members  of  the  dis- 
banded society  were  then  alive. 

The  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel  among  the  Indians  of  North 
America  (1787)  is  limited  to  fifty  members  equally  divided  among  the 
clergy  and  the  laity  of  the  Congregational  churches  of  Massachusetts. 
Like  the  “Massachusetts  Convention  of  Congregational  Ministers”  and 
the  “Massachusetts  Congregational  Charitable  Society,”  it  was  not  dis- 

6 Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves , 1762. 

7 James  Frothingham  Hunnewell,  History  of  the  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel 
among  the  Indians  and  Others  in  North  America  (Boston,  1887)  $ Samuel  Atkins 
Eliot,  “From  Scalping  Knife  to  Can  Opener:  A Sketch  of  the  Origins  and  Work  of 
an  Old  Massachusetts  Society,”  Proc.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  LXVI.  107— 125. 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1649  153 

banded  at  the  time  of  the  doctrinal  controversy  of  a century  and  a quarter 
ago.  The  fifty  members  are  equally  divided  among  liberal  and  evangelical 
Congregationalists.  Many  among  its  members  have  borne  the  most  hon- 
ored names  in  the  history  of  this  Commonwealth,  and  among  its  present 
membership  are  numerous  descendants  of  the  New  England  Commis- 
sioners of  the  original  New  England  Company  of  1649.  Thus,  three  hun- 
dred years  later,  the  work  for  which  the  ancient  and  honorable  New 
England  Company  was  founded  by  Act  of  Parliament— the  “Propagating 
of  the  Gospel  among  the  Indians  ...  in  North  America” — still  goes  on.8 


APPENDIX 

I 

Indian  Praying  T owns  and  Missions  in  New  England 

1.  Ashland.  M a gimkog  Praying  Town. 

Here,  a little  west  of  the  present  village  of  Ashland,  the  Reverend  John  Eliot 
established  a praying  town  as  early  as  1669,  for  in  that  year  it  was  called  “a  new 
town.”  In  1675  it  consisted  of  1 1 families  or  about  55  souls.  Of  these  eight  were 
church  members  at  Natick  and  15  were  baptized  persons.  According  to  Gookin, 
Magunkog  (Makunkakoag  or  Magunco)  means  “a  place  of  great  trees,”  and 
an  old  chestnut  was  still  standing  in  1874  measuring  22  feet  in  circumference, 
which  attests  to  the  strength  and  fertility  of  the  soil.  Part  of  the  town  was  pur- 
chased for  the  praying  Indians  of  Magunco  with  money  given  to  Harvard  Col- 
lege by  Governor  Edward  Hopkins  of  Connecticut,  a former  Commissioner 
of  the  United  Colonies  and  one  of  the  16  English  members  of  the  New  Eng- 
land Company  of  1649.  Until  1823  these  lands  were  rented  to  tenants  at  one 
penny  sterling  per  acre. 

Three  thousand  acres  of  land  belonged  to  the  praying  town.  ccThe  Indians 
plant  upon  a great  hill,  which  is  very  fertile.  . . . Their  teacher  is  named  Job; 
a person  well  accepted  for  piety  and  ability  among  them.  . . . They  have  plenty 
of  corn,  and  keep  some  cattle,  horses  and  swine,  for  which  the  place  is  well  ac- 
commodated.” The  Indian  title  was  relinquished  20  June  1693  and  the  land 
was  set  off  to  Hopkinton,  13  December  1717,  to  become  part  of  the  town  of 
Ashland  in  1846.  Willard  Hubbard  was  missionary  here,  1770—1778. 

Indian  'preachers: 

1669  Wohwrohquoshadt  1716  Simon  Ephraim 

1 675  Job  Kattenanit 

8 The  present  paper  is  a resume  of  a manuscript  by  Frederick  Lewis  Weis,  “The 
New  England  Company  of  1649  afid  the  Indian  Missions  in  Colonial  Times,”  1948. 


1 54  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

2.  Auburn.  Pakachoog  Praying  Town. 

This  town  consisted  of  about  20  families,  or  about  100  souls  in  1674.  It  was 
situated  upon  a fertile  hill,  partly  in  Auburn  (formerly  called  Ward)  and  part- 
ly in  Worcester,  “and  is  denominated  from  a delicate  spring  of  water  that  is 
there.”  Mr.  Gookin  continues:  “As  soon  as  the  people  could  be  got  together, 
Mr.  Eliot  preached  unto  them;  and  they  attended  reverently.  Their  teacher 
[used  in  the  ecclesiastical  sense],  named  James  Speen,  being  present,  read  and 
set  the  tune  of  a psalm,  that  was  sung  affectionately.  Then  was  the  whole  duty 
concluded  with  prayer.” 

Messrs.  Eliot  and  Gookin  approved  of  James  Speen.  “This  man  is  of  good 
parts,  and  pious.  He  hath  preached  to  this  people  almost  two  years;  but  he  yet 
resides  at  Hassanamesit  [i.e.,  Grafton],  about  seven  miles  distant.  . . . Then  I 
gave  both  the  rulers,  teacher,  constable,  and  people  their  respective  charges;  to 
be  diligent  and  faithful  for  God,  zealous  against  sin,  and  careful  in  sanctifying 
the  sabbath.” 

Native  minister: 

1672—1676  James  Speen 

3.  Barnstable.  Chequaquet  (Weequakut)  Praying  Town. 

Weequakut  (pronounced  Chequaquet,  and  so  spelled  today)  is  in  the  south- 
ern part  of  Barnstable,  at  Centerville.  In  1674  these  Indians,  with  the  praying 
Indians  of  Satucket  (Harwich),  Nobscusset  (Dennis)  and  Matakees  (Yar- 
mouth), were  grouped  together  as  being  122  in  number,  of  which  55  were  men 
and  67  women.  Thirty-three  of  this  number  could  read,  15  could  write,  and 
four  could  read  English.  They  were  under  the  supervision,  in  turn,  of  Richard 
Bourne,  John  Cotton,  Jr.,  Roland  Cotton,  Josiah  Cotton,  Daniel  Greenleaf, 
Gideon  Hawley  and  other  English  ministers. 

Native  'preacher: 

1698  Manasseh 

4.  Bourne.  Cataumet  Praying  Town. 

This  village  was  situated  in  the  lower  part  of  what  is  now  the  township  of 
Bourne  (formerly  the  west  or  second  parish  of  Sandwich)  on  Buzzards  Bay. 
There  were  40  Indians  here  in  1674.  (For  preachers  and  missionaries,  see  Man- 
namit  [No.  6]  below.) 

5.  Bourne.  The  Indian  Church  at  Herring  Ponds  (1658). 

This  Indian  church  was  situated  at  Comassakumkanet  (Herring  Ponds), 
partly  in  Plymouth  and  partly  in  that  section  of  Bourne  known  as  Sagamore,  west 
of  the  Cape  Cod  Canal,  formerly  part  of  the  second  precinct  of  the  old  town  of 
Sandwich. 

Roger  Williams  began  preaching  to  the  Indians  at  Plymouth  in  1631  or 
1632,  John  Eliot,  the  Apostle,  began  in  1646  and  Thomas  Mayhew,  Jr.,  in  the 
same  year.  Captain  Thomas  Tupper  began  in  1658,  Richard  Bourne  about  the 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1649  155 

same  time  and  John  Cotton,  Jr.,  in  1664.  In  his  list  of  the  first  six  churches 
(1673),  Mr.  Eliot  mentions  Martha’s  Vineyard,  1659,  and  Natick,  1660,  but 
does  not  mention  Herring  Ponds  Church,  probably  because  it  had  not  then  been 
organized  as  a church.  Yet  Captain  Tupper  began  his  missionary  work  here  in 
1658.  Thus  this  Indian  parish  is  one  of  the  oldest  in  New  England.  The  church 
must  have  been  gathered  before  the  death  of  Captain  Tupper  in  1676.  It  is 
quite  possible  that  Roger  Williams  preached  to  the  Comassakumkanet  Indians  in 
1631  or  1632. 

The  Tuppers  also  worked  at  Pompesspisset,  which  was  nearby.  In  1693  there 
were  180  Indians  connected  with  the  Herring  Ponds  church  under  Thomas 
Tupper.  In  1698  there  was  a meeting  house  and  348  Indians,  in  1792  there 
were  192  Indians  associated  with  the  church,  and  in  1803  there  were  64  In- 
dians (49  adults,  14  males  and  35  females;  and  15  children).  The  Commission- 
ers of  Indian  Affairs  reported  that  there  were  still  Indians  living  here  in  1849. 
After  1 767  Mr.  Elisha  Tupper  removed  to  Pocasset  but  continued  to  preach  here 
once  a month. 


Native  ministers: 

1674—1685  Charles  of  Mannamit 
ca.  1698  Ralph  Jones 
1698-1709  Jacob  Hedge 
Missionaries: 

1647—1654  William  Leveridge 
1658—1676  Thomas  Tupper 
1669—1697  John  Cotton,  Jr. 
1676—1706  Thomas  Tupper,  Jr. 
1691  — 1722  Roland  Cotton 
1706—1750  Eldad  Tupper 
Meeting  house:  1689,  finished  by 
Pierring  Ponds  Indians. 


1720—1775  Solomon  Briant 
1767—1770  Isaac  Jeffrey 

1707—1744  Josiah  Cotton 
1738—1787  Elisha  Tupper 
1758—1807  Gideon  Hawley 
1774—1779  Duncan  Ingraham 
1812—1834  Phinehas  Fish 

the  gift  of  Judge  Samuel  Sewall  to  the 


1691, 


6.  Bourne.  Mannamit  Praying  Town. 

Mannamit  was  situated  in  the  upper  part  of  Bourne  near  the  southern  en- 
trance of  the  Cape  Cod  Canal.  It  was  the  name  of  a small  river  which  emptied 
out  of  the  Herring  Ponds  near  the  boundary  of  Plymouth  and  which  formerly 
followed  what  is  now  the  lower  half  of  the  Canal  on  the  Buzzards  Bay  side. 
This  place  is  now  called  Monument  and  covers  the  section  of  the  town  from 
Monument  to  the  Canal.  Mannamit  was  just  being  organized  as  a praying  town 
when  Richard  Bourne  made  his  survey  of  the  Cape  Indians  in  1674.  He  was 
the  supervisor  of  all  the  Cape  Indians  but  the  Tuppers  were  the  preachers  here. 
Native  'preachers: 

ca.  1674  Wuttananmattuk  ca.  1674  Peter,  alias  Sakantucket 

ca.  1674  Meeshawin  ca.  1674  Charles  of  Mannamit 

1720-1775  Solomon  Briant  1757-1767  Isaac  Jeffrey 


1 56  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

Missionaries  to  the  Bourne  praying  towns: 

1674-1681  Richard  Bourne  1722-1746  Benjamin  Fessenden 

1681—1691  John  Cotton,  Jr.  1729—1742  Joseph  Bourne 

1691—1722  Roland  Cotton  1758—1807  Gideon  Hawley 

7.  Bourne.  Pisspogutt  Praying  Town. 

Supposedly  shared  the  same  ministers  and  teachers  as  Pocasset  (see  No.  8 be- 
low). 

8.  Bourne.  Pocasset  or  Pokesit  Praying  Town  and  Church. 

This  village,  long  a praying  town,  appears  to  have  been  organized  as  a church 
in  1767  when  there  were  eight  wigwams  here.  Mr.  Tupper  preached  here  at 
that  time  to  a mixed  congregation  of  Indians  and  whites  ( Massachusetts  Ar- 
chives, 33:  442).  Its  position  was  that  of  the  present  village  of  Pocasset,  a few 
miles  north  of  Cataumet,  towards  the  Cape  Cod  Canal.  It  enjoyed  the  same 
missionaries  as  Mannamit  (No.  6)  above,  but  had,  in  addition,  the  services  of 
Mr.  Elisha  Tupper  when  it  became  a distinct  parish  and  church  in  1767.  Be- 
fore 1767  it  also  had  the  services  of  two  Indian  preachers. 

Native  preachers  (see  also  Mannamit  above)  : 

1725—1758  Joseph  Briant  1758—1762  Joseph  Papenah 

Minister  (see  also  Mannamit  above) : 

1767—1787  Elisha  Tupper 

9.  Bourne.  Pompesspisset  Praying  Town. 

This  village  was  near  the  Herring  Ponds  Church  and  shared  its  ministers  and 
missionaries.  (See  No.  5 above.) 

10.  Branford,  Conn.  Pierson}s  Mission  to  the  New  Haven  Indians. 
The  Reverend  Abraham  Pierson,  settled  minister  of  the  Branford  Congrega- 
tional Church  from  1645  to  1665,  as  early  as  1652  began  to  preach  among  the 
Quinipiac  Indians  of  the  neighborhood  in  their  own  tongue.  He  published  at 
Cambridge,  1658,  Some  Helps  for  the  Indians  Shewing  them  How  to  improve 
their  natural  Reason,  to  know  the  True  God , and  the  true  Christian  Religion , 
&c.  This  he  translated  into  the  Quinipiac  dialect  used  by  the  Indians  around 
Branford.  It  is  the  only  printed  work  in  that  dialect.  But  the  good  work  which 
he  started  here  was  never  completed  for,  with  the  English  church  of  Branford, 
he  removed  to  Newark,  New  Jersey,  in  1665. 

Missionary : 

1652—1665  Abraham  Pierson 

11.  Brookfield.  QuabaugTown. 

Mr.  Eliot  preached  to  the  Indians  at  Quabaug  in  1649  an<^  1655.  The 
latter  year  he  purchased  1,000  acres  of  land  there  for  the  site  of  a praying 
town.  The  people  were  friendly  and  favorable  to  the  preaching  of  the  gospel 


1948]  1 he  New  England  Company  of  1649  157 

and  he  was  hopeful  that  a praying  town  might  soon  be  started  there.  Gookin 
likewise  declared:  “There  are  two  other  Indian  towns,  viz.  Weshakim  and 
Quabaug,  which  are  coming  on  to  receive  the  gospel.”  Unfortunately  the  Eng- 
lish settlement  of  Brookfield  was  sacked  and  burned  during  King  Philip’s  War 
and  these  hopes  were  never  realized.  However,  the  Reverend  Gideon  Hawley 
was  the  Indian  missionary  at  Sturbridge  (in  the  Quabaug  district),  1752— 
1758,  and  the  Reverend  Eli  Forbes  at  Brookfield,  1760—1775. 

12.  Canton.  Praying  Town  at  Punkapoag. 

The  Punkapoag  (Pakomit  or  Pecunet)  Indians  were  the  Neponset  Indians 
of  Dorchester  (q.v.)  who  had  been  granted  this  plantation  of  6,000  acres  by 
the  town  of  Dorchester  in  1656  and  had  settled  here  at  that  time.  Dorchester 
then  extended  as  far  south  as  the  present  town  of  North  Attleborough,  and  the 
Punkapoag  settlement  doubtless  contained  natives  from  this  whole  area  now 
made  up  of  the  towns  of  Milton,  Canton,  Sharon,  Stoughton,  Foxborough  and 
Mansfield  as  well  as  Dorchester  proper.  Punkapoag  always  remained  a praying 
town  rather  than  a church,  although  in  1669  there  were  at  this  place  eight  or 
ten  probationers.  Their  church  connection  was  with  Natick.  In  1675  there  were 
12  families  of  Punkapoag  Indians,  or  about  60  souls.  A year  later,  10  No- 
vember 1676,  some  35  men  and  140  women  and  children  resided  at  Punka- 
poag and  in  Dorchester,  Milton  and  Braintree.  They  were  well  behaved  and 
comfortably  situated. 

“There  is  a great  mountain,  called  the  Blue  Hill,  lieth  north  east  from  it 
about  two  miles.  . . . This  is  the  second  praying  town.  . . . They  have  a ruler, 
a constable,  and  a schoolmaster.  Their  ruler’s  name  is  Ahaton;  an  old  and  faith- 
ful friend  to  the  English.  Their  teacher  [preacher]  is  William  Ahaton,  his  son; 
an  ingenious  person  and  pious  man,  and  of  good  parts.  Here  was  a very  able 
teacher,  who  died  about  three  years  since.  His  name  was  William  Awinian.  He 
was  a very  knowing  person,  and  of  great  ability,  and  of  genteel  deportment,  and 
spoke  very  good  English.  ...  In  this  village,  besides  their  planting  and  keeping 
cattle  and  swine,  and  fishing  in  good  ponds,  and  upon  Neponsitt  river  which 
lieth  near  them;  they  are  also  advantaged  by  a large  cedar  swamp;  wherein  such 
as  are  laborious  and  diligent,  do  get  many  a pound,  by  cutting  and  preparing 
cedar  shingles  and  clapboards,  which  sell  well  in  Boston  and  other  English  towns 
adjacent.” 

Punkapoag  was  one  of  the  four  places  of  stated  worship  in  the  Bay  Colony  in 
1684.  There  was  still  one  pure  blood  Indian  here  in  1849,  the  rest  being  of 
mixed  blood.  In  1857  the  tribe  was  nearly  extinct;  “only  some  fifteen  or  twenty, 
and  those  mostly  of  mixed  blood,  remain.”  John  Eliot,  senior  and  junior, 
preached  here  once  a fortnight  for  many  years. 

Indian  f reacher s: 

1656—1672  William  Awinian  1717— 1743  Amos  Ahaton 

1674—1717  William  Ahaton  ca.  1742  Aaron  Pomham 


1 5 8 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

English  missionaries : 

1656- 1690  John  Eliot,  Sr.  1680-1727  Peter  Thacher 

1657- 1668  John  Eliot,  Jr.  1707-1727  Joseph  Morse 

1668—1671  Habakkuk  Glover 

13.  Castine,  Maine.  Indian  Mission , 1611.  Roman  Catholic. 
Pentagoet,  now  Castine,  at  the  lower  end  of  the  peninsula  on  the  east  bank  of 

the  Penobscot  River,  was  the  seat  of  an  early  mission  to  the  Indians  under  the 
charge  of  Father  Peter  Biard,  a Jesuit  priest.  He  soon  removed  to  Mount  Desert 
Island.  Shortly  thereafter  a fort  and  trading  station  were  established  at  Castine, 
and  Father  Gabriel  Druillettes,  a Capuchin  priest,  conducted  a mission  among 
the  Tarrantine  Indians,  1632—1646.  In  1646  Friar  Leo,  also  a Capuchin,  super- 
vised the  erection  of  a chapel  at  Castine,  with  the  assistance  of  Father  Thevet, 
a Franciscan.  Now  extinct. 

14.  Charlestown,  Rhode  Island.  India?i  Church , 1702.  X.  Congre- 

gational. 

This  church  had  for  its  preacher  the  Reverend  Samuel  Miles.  (But  he  is  said 
not  to  have  been  the  Harvard  graduate  by  the  same  name  who  was  living  in  the 
next  township  at  the  same  time  and  was  doing  missionary  work  there!)  He  was 
followed  by  the  Reverend  Joseph  Torrey. 

Missionaries: 

1702— 1710  Samuel  Miles  1770—1775  Edward  Deake  (part 

1732-1791  Joseph  Torrey  time) 

15.  Charlestown,  Rhode  Island.  Indian  Baptist  Church , 1750. 

The  first  minister  of  this  church  was  James  Simons,  perhaps  an  Indian.  His 

successor  was  the  Reverend  Thomas  Ross,  born  at  Westerly,  Rhode  Island,  1 1 
September  1719.  When  he  came  here  and  how  long  he  preached  is  unknown, 
except  that  he  was  here  in  1770.  In  1774  there  were  528  Indians  living  in  this 
town,  many  of  whom  later  removed  to  New  York  State. 

Ministers: 

ca.  1750  James  Simons  ca.  1770  Thomas  Ross 

1 6 . C hath  am  . M onomoy  Praying  T oum. 

The  Monomoy  Indians,  never  very  numerous,  seem  to  have  disappeared  by 
1765.  In  1674  Richard  Bourne  had  general  oversight  of  them.  He  reported 
that  there  were  7 1 praying  Indians  in  this  place,  of  whom  42  were  adults  and 
29  were  young  men  and  maids.  Of  these  71,  20  could  then  read,  1 5 could  write, 
while  only  one  could  read  English.  The  Reverend  Samuel  Treat  of  Eastham 
preached  to  them  regularly  after  that  time.  In  1685  there  were  1 15  adults,  but 
by  1698  there  were  only  14  houses,  that  is,  about  84  Indians.  In  1762,  30  are 
reported  and  long  before  1 800  there  were  none. 


i59 


1948]  1 he  New  England  Company  of  1 649 


Indian  fre ackers: 
ca.  1685  Nicholas 
Missionaries: 

1672-1681  Richard  Bourne 
1672-1717  Samuel  Treat 


ca.  1698  John  Cosens 

1708—1726  Daniel  Greenleaf 
1729—1742  Joseph  Bourne 


17.  Chilmark.  Nashnakemmuck  Indian  Churchy  1651. 

This  Indian  church  was  organized  in  1674  but  preaching  had  been  conduct- 
ed here  for  many  years  before  that  date.  The  first  preacher,  Momonequem,  had 
been  converted  in  1649  and  began  preaching  here  in  1651.  He  was  followed 
by  John  Tackanash  who  was  ordained  in  1670.  He,  with  Japheth  Hannit,  had 
been  ordained  for  Sanchacantacket  (Oak  Bluffs)  with  the  idea  that  they  were 
also  to  preach  in  the  other  Indian  towns  as  well.  Janawannit  died  in  1686  and 
was  succeeded  by  William  Lay,  alias  Panunnut.  He  was  followed  by  Stephen 
Tackamason,  son  of  Wuttattakkomason.  The  home  of  the  Reverend  Experience 
Mayhew  was  at  the  “Manor  of  Tisbury”  here  in  Chilmark. 

In  1674  there  were  231  Indians  in  Chilmark  and  Gay  Head,  of  whom  64 
were  in  full  communion.  Preaching  was  continued  by  the  missionaries  of  the 
island.  In  1792  there  were  25  Indians  left  but  the  church  became  extinct  some- 
time after  1 784. 


Indian  ministers: 

1651—  Momonequem 
1670—1684  John  Tackanash 
1674—1686  Janawannit 
Missionaries: 

1647—1681  Thomas  Mayhew,  Sr. 
1673—1689  John  Mayhew 
1694—1758  Experience  Mayhew 


1683—1712  Japheth  Hannit 
Died  1690  William  Lay 
1690—1708  Stephen  Tackamason 

1701— 1723  Josiah  Torrey 
1727—1752  Nathaniel  Hancock 
1767—1806  Zachariah  Mayhew 


18.  Chilmark.  Muckuckhonnike  Praying  Town. 

There  was  an  Indian  praying  town  at  this  place  of  which  we  know  nothing 
except  that  the  preacher,  Panupuhquah,  died  about  1664.  He  was  an  elder 
brother  of  William  Lay.  The  Mayhews  had  the  general  oversight  of  this  and  the 
two  following  praying  towns. 

Native  minister: 

Died  1664  Panupuhquah 


19.  Chilmark.  Praying  town  at  Seconchgut. 

In  1698  there  were  35  Indians  in  this  town. 
Native  'preachers: 

1698—1713  Stephen  Shohkow 


1698—1718  Daniel  Shohkow 


1 60  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

20.  Chilmark.  Talhanio  Praying  Town. 

The  native  minister  was: 

1670—1684  John  Tackanash 

21.  Concord.  Musketaquid  Praying  Town. 

The  Indian  name  for  Concord  was  Musketaquid.  When  the  General  Court 
granted  the  plantation  of  Nashobah  to  the  natives  of  this  vicinity  in  1654  many 
Musketaquid  Indians  settled  there. 

The  praying  town  at  Concord  was  of  a temporary  nature  and  is  chiefly  im- 
portant because  of  the  fact  that  it  contained  many  Christian  Indians  from  out- 
lying towns  during  1675  and  1676.  This  was  arranged  through  the  personal 
benevolence  of  Mr.  John  Hoar  of  Concord  who  took  pity  upon  the  hungry  and 
shelterless  Christian  Indians  and  allowed  them  to  settle  for  the  time  being  on 
his  own  land.  He  was  a true  friend  to  them  and  it  was  he  who  obtained  the 
ransom  and  release  of  Mrs.  Mary  Rowlandson,  wife  of  the  first  minister  at  Lan- 
caster. 

The  Indians  at  Musketaquid  during  King  Philip’s  War  were  mostly  Nasho- 
bahs,  58  in  number,  whereof  12  were  able  men,  the  rest  being  women  and  chil- 
dren. But  so  great  was  the  fear  and  bigotry  of  some  of  the  townspeople  of  Con- 
cord that  Captain  Moseley  was  able  to  march  off  with  these  Indians  to  Deer 
Island,  in  spite  of  the  protests  of  Mr.  Hoar.  In  his  haste  to  be  away  with  them 
Captain  Moseley  required  the  natives  to  leave  behind  six  months’  supply  of 
corn  and  provisions.  Because  of  this  they  had  to  be  supported  by  the  Corporation 
for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  New  England  during  their  stay  on  Deer 
Island.  After  the  war  most  of  these  Indians  settled  at  Natick. 

22.  Dartmouth.  N ukkehkummees  Indian  Church. 

Forty  communicants  lived  here  at  Nukkehkummees  and  in  other  parts  of  the 
original  town  of  Dartmouth  in  1698,  but  by  1713  there  were  “very  few  in 
number”  left.  Mr.  Cotton  preached  regularly  here  and  at  Acushnet.  He  was 
followed  by  the  Reverend  Samuel  Hunt  of  New  Bedford.  William  Simon  or 
Simons  was  ordained  by  Japheth  at  Martha’s  Vineyard  in  1695,  and  it  was  he 
who  accompanied  the  Reverend  Experience  Mayhew  as  interpreter  on  his  mis- 
sionary trips  to  Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut  in  1713  and  1714.  Japheth 
Hannit,  who  was  ordained  in  1670,  often  preached  to  these  Indians,  though  he 
was  regularly  settled  on  the  Vineyard. 

Old  Dartmouth  contained  the  following  praying  settlements:  Nukkehkum- 
mees, Acushnet  (New  Bedford),  Assameekq,  Cooxit  or  Acoaxet  (Westport) 
and  Sakonnet  (Little  Compton).  Adjacent  was  Cooxissett  (probably  Rochester). 
The  church  here  was  gathered  about  1690. 

Indian  'preachers: 

1670-1695  Japheth  Hannit  1711-1718  Samuel  Holms 

1695-1718  William  Simons  ca.  1770  Thomas  Simons 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1 649  1 6 1 

Missionaries: 

1669- 1697  John  Cotton,  Jr.  1708-1730  Samuel  Hunt 

23.  Dennis.  N obscusset  Praying  T own. 

In  1685  the  preacher  for  this  town  was  Manasseh,  at  which  time  there  were 
121  Indians  here  and  in  the  neighboring  town  of  Harwich.  (See  data  under 
Barnstable.) 

Indian  freacher: 

1685-1698  Manasseh 
Missionaries: 

1670- 1681  Richard  Bourne  1681-1697  John  Cotton,  Jr. 

24.  Dochet  Island,  St.  Croix  River,  Maine.  Mission } 1604. 

In  1603  Pierre  du  Guast,  Sieur  de  Monts,  received  a trading  concession  for 
“Acadia.”  The  following  spring  he  set  sail  with  his  Lieutenant,  Samuel  de 
Champlain,  and  four  score  colonists,  including  a Huguenot  minister  and  a 
Catholic  priest.  They  landed  on  Dochet  Island  26  June  1604,  which  they 
called  St.  Croix,  but  they  sailed  away  in  the  spring  of  1605,  and  in  August  re- 
moved to  Annapolis  Royal,  Nova  Scotia.  The  name  of  the  Huguenot  minister 
is  not  known,  but  that  of  the  priest  was  Nicholas  Aubrey  (or  d’Aubri).  The  In- 
dian mission  was  abandoned  in  1605. 

25.  Dorchester.  Nefonset  Praying  Town } 1646—1656. 

The  Neponset  tribe  of  Indians,  inhabiting  the  territory  of  what  is  now  Dor- 
chester and  Quincy,  were  all  who  remained  in  1630  of  the  much  larger  and 
more  important  tribe,  the  Massachusetts  Indians,  who  had  lived  in  the  area  ex- 
tending in  a semi-circle  around  Boston  from  Malden  to  Cohasset.  At  the  time 
of  the  arrival  of  the  colonists,  this  tribe  was  reduced  to  less  than  100  braves. 
They  made  little  or  no  progress  in  the  arts  of  civilized  life  and  soon  lost  most 
of  the  energy  which  they  had  possessed  in  their  wandering  life.  In  the  spring 
they  lived  at  the  falls  of  the  Neponset  River  (at  Milton-Dorchester  Lower  Mills) 
to  catch  fish,  and  at  planting  time  they  removed  nearer  the  sea  for  salt  water 
fishing. 

The  first  settlers  felt  much  interest  in  these  natives  and  great  efforts  were 
made  to  civilize  and  convert  them  to  Christianity.  But  when  John  Eliot  first 
preached  to  them  in  1646  he  met  with  little  encouragement.  Believing  that 
they  should  live  a good  distance  from  the  white  settlers  to  better  promote  their 
temporal  and  spiritual  interests  he  solicited  for  their  removal  and,  in  1656,  the 
town  of  Dorchester  granted  6,000  acres  of  land  to  them,  which  was  laid  out  at 
Punkapoag  whither  they  removed,  and  there  the  lapse  of  years  saw  their  ex- 
tinction. Mr.  Eliot  preached  to  them  fortnightly  from  1646  until  their  removal, 
and  thereafter  almost  until  his  death  in  1690.  (See  Canton.) 


1 62  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

26.  Easthampton,  Long  Island,  New  York.  Mission. 

Here  the  Reverend  Thomas  James,  Jr.,  was  settled  as  minister  of  the  Eng- 
lish Congregational  Church  from  1650  until  his  death  on  16  June  1696.  Dur- 
ing most  of  this  time  he  also  preached  to  the  Indians  of  this  part  of  Long  Island, 
especially  between  1662  and  1675.  For  some  years  he  received  a stipend  from 
the  New  England  Company  of  1649. 


27.  Edgartown.  Indian  Church  at  C hafpaquiddicky  1659. 

The  earliest  Indian  church  in  Massachusetts  was  gathered  in  1659  on  the 
large  island  of  Chappaquiddick,  a part  of  Edgartown,  off  the  eastern  end  of 
Martha’s  Vineyard.  John  Hiacoomes  was  the  first  Indian  known  to  have  been 
converted  to  Christianity  in  this  Commonwealth.  His  conversion  took  place  in 
1643  under  the  Reverend  Thomas  Mayhew,  Jr.  Hiacoomes  began  preaching 
to  the  Indians  in  1646  on  Martha’s  Vineyard,  where  he  was  a very  valuable  as- 
sistant to  the  Mayhews  of  the  first  three  generations. 

In  1670  Messrs.  Eliot,  Mayhew  and  Cotton  ordained  Hiacoomes  and  John 
Tackanash  as  ministers,  Momatchegin  as  ruling  elder  and  Nohnoso  as  deacon  of 
this  church  and  of  the  other  praying  towns  on  the  Vineyard.  Hiacoomes  also 
preached  to  the  Indians  of  Nantucket  and  gathered  the  first  church  on  that  is- 
land. But  his  main  task  was  here  on  Chappaquiddick  where  he  preached  to  his 
own  people  from  1659  to  1690.  Joshua  Momatchegin  assisted  Hiacoomes  in 
preaching  until  1690  when  he  became  minister  of  the  church,  serving  until  his 
death  in  1 703.  In  turn,  he  was  succeeded  by  the  deacon  of  the  church,  Jonathan 
Amos,  who  preached  here  and  at  Gay  Head  until  his  death  in  1 706.  Amos  was 
the  last  native  preacher  of  this  church,  after  which  the  missionaries  having 
oversight  of  the  Indians  of  Martha’s  Vineyard  preached  here  at  stated  intervals 
until  the  church  became  extinct.  There  were  60  Indian  families  (about  360  in- 
dividuals) at  Chappaquiddick  in  1674;  138  were  members  of  the  congregation 
in  1698;  in  1764  there  were  86;  and  in  1792,  75  Indians  remained  here. 
Native  'preachers: 

1659—1690  Hiacoomes  1703—1706  Jonathan  Amos 

1670—1703  Joshua  Momatchegin 


Missionaries: 

1642—1657  Thomas  Mayhew,  Jr. 
1647—1681  Thomas  Mayhew,  Sr. 
1656—1661  Peter  Folger 
1664—1667  John  Cotton,  Jr. 


1673—1689  John  Mayhew 
1694—1758  Experience  Mayhew 
1767—1806  Zachariah  Mayhew 
1810—1836  Frederic  Baylies 


and  doubtless  1713—1746  Samuel  Wiswall 


28.  Edgartown.  Nashamoiess  Praying  Town. 

Nashamoiess  (Nashawamass)  means  “He  is  beloved  of  the  Spirit.”  Here 
John  Tackanash  preached  from  1670  to  1684  and,  following  him,  from  time 


1 948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1649  163 

to  time  all  the  missionaries  of  the  island  of  Martha’s  Vineyard  took  their  turns. 
This  village  is  situated  in  the  southern  part  of  the  town. 

Native  preacher: 

1670—1684  John  Tackanash 

29.  Edgartown.  Nunnepoag  Praying  Town. 

In  1698  there  were  84  Indians  in  this  town.  Joshua  Tackquannash  was  the 
minister  and  Josiah  Thomas  the  teacher. 

Native  preachers: 

ca.  1698  Joshua  Tackquannash  ca.  1698  Josiah  Thomas 

30.  Fall  River.  Watuppa  Ponds  Praying  Towny  1709. 

In  1709  a group  of  Pocasset  Indians  liyed  on  a small  reservation  of  195  acres 
on  the  east  side  of  North  Watuppa  Pond.  Samuel  Church  (Mr.  Sam,  as  he  was 
called),  a dignified  Indian  who  had  preached  at  Sakonnet  as  early  as  1685,  was 
their  minister  from  1706  to  1716  and  probably  until  the  settlement  of  Mr. 
Brett.  The  Reverend  Silas  Brett  preached  to  these  natives  in  a small  meeting 
house  from  1747  to  1775.  By  1763  the  natives  had  divided  the  lands  of  the 
reservation  among  themselves.  In  1849  there  were  still  37  remaining,  and  16 
persons  in  1837. 

Fall  River  was  set  off  from  Freetown  (Assonet)  in  1803.  The  Indian  name 
of  the  stream,  which  later  furnished  so  much  waterpower  to  the  mills,  was 
Quequechan,  meaning  “quick-running  water.”  In  the  last  half  mile  of  its  course 
from  the  Watuppa  Ponds  there  is  a drop  of  140  feet  into  the  Taunton  River. 
The  Watuppa  Ponds  now  furnish  the  Fall  River  water  supply,  having  been  taken 
by  the  city  for  that  purpose  in  1907. 

Native  preacher: 

1706—1716  Samuel  Church 
Missionaries: 

1689—1727  Samuel  Danforth  1747—1776  Silas  Brett 

31.  Falmouth.  Succonesit  Praying  Town. 

Mr.  Bourne’s  account  of  the  Cape  Indians,  1674,  lists  Pispogutt  (Bourne), 
Waywayontat  or  Wewewantett  (Wareham)  and  Sokones  (Falmouth)  together 
as  having  36  praying  Indians,  20  adults  and  16  young  men  and  maids,  of  whom 
20  could  read  and  seven  could  write.  In  1685  there  were  72  Indians  in  this 
congregation.  Gideon  Hawley  mentions  four  wigwams  (or  about  24  persons)  at 
Succannessett  or  Sussconsett  (also  Falmouth)  in  1764. 
hidian  preachers: 

1685-1709  Old  John 
1708—1719  John  of  Falmouth 


1758—1762  Joseph  Papenah 


1 64  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

M issionaries: 

1674—1681  Richard  Bourne  1729—1742  Joseph  Bourne 

1681  — 1697  John  Cotton,  Jr.  1757—1764  Gideon  Hawley 

1709-1723  Joseph  Metcalf 

32.  Falmouth.  Waquoit  Praying  Town. 

The  Waquoit  (Wakoquet)  praying  town  is  listed  by  Mr.  Bourne  in  1674 
with  Satuit,  Pawpoesit,  Cotuit  and  Mashpee  with  the  Mashpee  group  of  95  In- 
dians, 70  adults  and  25  youths  and  maids,  of  whom  24  could  read,  ten  could 
write  and  two  could  read  English.  Waquoit  was,  therefore,  doubtless  situated 
on  the  bay  of  that  name  in  Falmouth  or  near  the  Mashpee  border,  but  at  all 
events  it  was  associated  with  the  Mashpee  church  and  enjoyed  the  benefit  of  its 
preaching.  (See  Mashpee  church.) 

33.  Gay  Head.  Indian  C ongregational  Churchy  1663. 

Founded  in  1663  at  the  southwest  corner  of  the  island  of  Martha’s  Vine- 
yard this  Indian  church,  though  under  the  supervision  of  the  missionaries  of 
the  island,  had  its  own  native  preachers  for  many  years.  There  were  231  In- 
dians in  this  congregation  in  1674,  of  whom  64  were  in  full  communion. 
During  1674  part  of  these  64  members  were  dismissed  to  form  the  new 
church  at  Nashnakemmuck  at  Chilmark  (No.  17,  q.v.).  By  1713  the  number 
of  parishioners  had  increased  to  260,  which  was  evidently  the  high  point  in  the 
population  of  the  town  in  Colonial  times. 

Sachem  Metaark,  the  founder  and  first  minister,  died  20  January  1683  and 
was  succeeded  by  David  Wuttnomanomin,  deacon  and  preacher,  who  died  in 
1698.  The  third  minister,  Japheth  Hannit,  born  in  1638,  died  29  July  1712, 
was  the  son  of  Pamchannitt.  He  was  followed  by  Jonathan  Amos,  deacon  and 
preacher,  who  died  in  1706,  the  son  of  Amos  of  Chappaquiddick.  Then  Abel 
Wauwompukque,  brother  of  Metaark,  preached  until  his  death,  1 October 
1722,  and  was  succeeded  in  turn  by  Joash  Pannos  (Paunos  or  Panneu),  ordained 
in  1716,  died  in  August,  1720,  son  of  Annampanu.  Peter  Ohquanhut,  probably 
the  last  native  preacher,  was  settled  here  in  1725. 

Experience  Mayhew,  as  general  missionary  on  the  Vineyard,  preached  in 
this  church  regularly  at  each  meeting  in  town  until  his  death.  The  Reverend 
Messrs.  Josiah  Torrey  and  Nathaniel  Hancock,  both  of  West  Tisbury,  also 
preached  in  turn,  as  did  all  the  settled  ministers  of  the  other  towns  on  the  island. 

The  meeting  house  was  built  in  1690  but  was  not  finished  until  1713.  It  was 
still  standing  in  1786,  though  seldom  favored  with  a congregation  at  that  time. 
The  last  child  to  be  baptized  was  Mary  Cooper  in  1784,  shortly  after  which 
the  meeting  house  was  abandoned.  Twenty-five  natives  still  belonged  to  the 
parish  as  late  as  1792,  but  soon  after  this  the  old  church  became  extinct.  (See 
Chilmark.)  After  1792  the  Baptist  Church  of  Gay  Head  (1702)  took  its  place. 

Gay  Head  was  part  of  Chilmark  until  1870  when  it  was  set  off  as  a separate 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1649  165 

town.  At  that  time  it  had  a population  of  160.  It  continues  to  be  populated  ex- 
clusively by  the  descendants  of  the  Indians  of  Martha’s  Vineyard,  though  nowa- 
days they  are  mostly  of  mixed  blood.  The  inhabitants  subsist  mainly  by  fishing 
and  agriculture. 

We  are  told  that  during  the  first  World  War  the  Gay  Head  Indians  furnished 
to  the  army  and  navy  of  the  United  States  the  largest  number  of  men,  in  pro- 
portion to  its  population,  of  any  town  in  the  United  States. 

Native  preachers: 

1663—1683  Sachem  Metaark 
1683—1698  David  Wuttnomanomin 
1683—1712  Japheth  Hannit 
Died  1706  Jonathan  Amos 
1683—1714  Elisha  Paaonut 
I 709—1  7 1 8 Daniel  Shoko 

Missionaries: 

1663— 1681  Thomas  Mayhew,  Sr. 

1664— 1667  John  Cotton,  Jr. 

1673—1689  John  Mayhew 
1694—1758  Experience  Mayhew 
Meeting  house:  1690,  still  standing  in  1786. 

34.  Gay  Head.  Indian  Baptist  Church  at  Gay  Heady  1702. 

Unlike  all  the  other  Indian  congregations  on  the  island  of  Martha’s  Vineyard, 
which  were  Congregational,  this  society  began  as  an  independent  Anabaptist 
church.  It  was  never  large,  but  in  1702  there  were  about  30  members,  ten  of 
whom  were  men,  out  of  a total  Indian  population  at  that  time  of  some  300  souls. 
After  1792  this  church  evidently  absorbed  the  members  of  the  earlier  (1663) 
Indian  Congregational  Church  of  Gay  Head.  Fifteen  members  of  this  society 
became  affiliated  with  the  Baptist  church  at  Holmes’  Hole  8 April  1832.  Since 
1855  the  Baptist  Missionary  Society  has  supported  a series  of  missionary  preach- 
ers here.  It  is  extraordinary  that  this  church,  for  fully  a century  the  weakest  of 
the  Indian  churches  of  Martha’s  Vineyard,  should  alone  have  survived  them  all 
and  at  the  present  day  is  the  only  church  in  the  town  of  Gay  Head. 

Colonel  Charles  Edward  Banks,  the  historian  of  the  Vineyard,  wrote  of  the 
founding  of  this  church:  “It  may  be  doubted  whether  any  Indian  of  that  day 
had  a clear  conception  of  the  white  man’s  religion  as  an  abstruse  proposition,  to 
say  nothing  of  its  various  sectarian  interpretations.” 

All  of  the  preachers  of  this  church  before  1855  were  Indians.  Isaac  Decamy 
came  from  a mainland  family.  Josias  Hossuit,  Jr.,  was  preaching  here  in  1727 
when  the  congregation  was  called  “a  small  society  of  Baptists.”  Samuel  Kakene- 
hew  lived  at  Chappaquiddick  and  preached  here  as  well  as  there.  Silas  Paul,  the 
only  Baptist  preacher  on  the  Vineyard  during  his  ministry,  was  born  in  1738, 
baptized  in  1758,  began  preaching  here  in  1763,  and  died  22  August  1787. 


1712—  1722  Abel  Wauwompukque 

1713—  1720  Joash  Pannos 
ca.  1725  Peter  Ohquanhut 
ca.  1770  Zachariah  Osooit 
ca.  1770  David  Capy 

1701-1723  Josiah  Torrey 
1727—1752  Nathaniel  Hancock 
1 767— 1 786  Zachariah  Mayhew 


1 66  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

Thomas  Jeffers  was  born  in  Plymouth,  1742,  and  died  at  Gay  Head  30  August 
1818,  aged  76  years.  Joseph  Amos  came  to  Gay  Head  from  Mashpee.  In  1839 
there  were  47  communicants. 

Native  ministers: 

1702—1702  Josias  Hossuit 
1702—1708  Stephen  Tackamason 
1708—1720  Isaac  Decamy 
1720—1727  Josias  Hossuit,  Jr. 
post  1727  Ephraim  Abraham 

The  present  meeting  house  is  on  the  main  road  between  Menemsha  and  Squib- 
nocket  Ponds. 

35.  Gay  Head.  Indian  Praying  Town  at  Gay  Head . 

This  praying  town  was  distinct  from  the  other  two  churches  of  Gay  Head  and 
had  a meeting  house  of  its  own.  How  long  it  lasted  is  not  known  but,  being 
Congregationalist,  its  surviving  members  must  have  joined  the  first  church  in 
this  place  eventually.  It  had  the  benefit,  with  all  the  other  praying  towns  on  the 
Vineyard,  of  the  oversight  and  preaching  of  the  missionaries  of  the  island. 
Indian  f reap  hers: 

1683-1714  Elisha  Paaonut  1698-1722  Abel  Wauwompukque 

36.  Gosnold.  Indian  Praying  Towns  on  the  Elizabeth  Islands. 

The  Elizabeth  Islands  are  thirteen  in  number,  but  some  are  very  small.  To- 
gether they  make  up  the  township  of  Gosnold.  The  more  important  islands  may 
be  remembered  by  the  rhyme: 

Cuttyhunk  and  Penakeese, 

Nashawena,  Pasquenese, 

Great  Naushon,  Nonamesset, 

Uncatena,  and  Wepecket. 

The  most  important  and  largest,  being  seven  and  a half  miles  long,  is  Naushon. 
Major  Winthrop’s  Island  is  so-called  because  it  was  owned  by  Major-General 
Wait  Winthrop,  one  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  New  England  Company  of 
1649. 

In  1671  Mr.  Mayhew  stated  that  there  were  then  15  families  of  Indians  on 
the  Elizabeth  Islands,  seven  of  which  were  praying  families.  In  1698  nine  fam- 
ilies of  praying  Indians  on  Major  Winthrop’s  Island  belonged  to  the  church  on 
Martha’s  Vineyard  of  which  Japheth  was  the  minister  (Gay  Head,  No.  33). 
Three  families  at  Saconeset  Point  in  Falmouth  attended  services  here.  The  mis- 
sionaries from  Martha’s  Vineyard  visited  the  Islands  from  time  to  time  and 
preached  here.  Mr.  John  Weeks,  an  Englishman,  was  the  resident  missionary. 
Native  freachers: 

ca.  1698  Asa  1709-1727  Daniel  Shohkow 

ca.  1700  Jannohquosso  ca.  1 71 1 Sampson  Natusoo 


died  1763  Samuel  Kakenehew 
1763-1787  Silas  Paul 
1792—1818  Thomas  Jeffers 
1832—1855  Joseph  Amos 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1649  167 

Missionaries: 

1670—1681  Thomas  Mayhew  1698-1717  Mr.  John  Weeks 

37.  Grafton.  II assanatnesit  Indian  Church,  1671. 

John  Eliot  began  preaching  at  Hassanamesit  as  early  as  1651,  and  through 
his  efforts  an  Indian  church  was  gathered  here  in  1671,  being  the  second  church 
of  praying  Indians  in  the  Bay  Colony.  At  that  time  there  were  12  Indian  fam- 
ilies or  60  souls  settled  here,  of  whom  16  were  church  members  in  full  com- 
munion and  30  others  were  baptized  Indians.  Indeed,  several  members  of  the 
Natick  church  had  been  living  here  as  early  as  1669.  The  name  of  the  town, 
Hassanamesit,  means  “a  place  of  small  stones”  and  was  situated  on  the  Old  Con- 
necticut Path  not  far  from  the  Nipmuc  (or  Blackstone)  River.  Its  area  was  four 
square  miles,  about  8,000  acres,  with  rich  land,  plenty  of  meadow  and  well 
watered.  “It  produceth  plenty  of  corn,  grain  and  fruit,  for  there  are  several 
good  orchards  in  the  place.”  The  natives  also  kept  cattle  and  swine  and  were  as 
prosperous  as  in  any  Indian  town  in  the  country. 

During  King  Philip’s  War  the  Indians  remained  loyal  and  friendly  to  the 
English,  though  they  suffered  more  at  the  hands  of  the  English  than  from  the 
enemy.  Early  in  the  war  many  went  down  to  Natick  with  other  praying  In- 
dians of  the  vicinity  whence,  unfortunately,  all  were  sent  to  Deer  Island,  Boston 
Harbor,  where  about  500  friendly  praying  Indians  were  confined  throughout 
the  war.  When  finally,  in  desperation,  the  English  decided  to  trust  them,  a num- 
ber of  them  volunteered  as  scouts  and  a military  company  of  Indians  was  formed 
which  in  short  order,  because  of  their  intimate  knowledge  of  the  wilderness, 
brought  about  the  destruction  of  the  enemy  Indians.  They  were  allowed,  even- 
tually, to  return  to  their  praying  towns,  much  reduced  in  numbers,  for  many 
had  died  of  exposure,  disease  and  hunger  on  Deer  Island.  The  church  in  Graf- 
ton was  re-established  and  the  Indians  remained  here  peacefully  for  several 
generations.  In  1698  there  were  five  families.  By  1765  Hutchinson  reported 
eight  or  ten  families  (40  or  50  persons)  at  Grafton,  and  in  1849  there  were 
still  a number  of  Grafton  Indians  living  here. 

Joseph  Tuckappawill  (Tappakkoowillim  or  Tuppukkoowelim) , “a  pious  and 
able  man,  and  apt  to  teach,”  began  preaching  here  as  early  as  1669  and  served 
as  a scout  in  King  Philip’s  War.  James  Printer,  his  brother,  also  served  the  col- 
onists faithfully  as  a scout  during  the  war  and  was  employed  by  the  New  England 
Company  as  preacher  and  teacher  in  this  place  from  1708  (and  doubtless  much 
earlier)  to  1717,  when  a small  pension  was  paid  by  the  Company  to  his  widow 
Mary  for  his  long  and  useful  service.  He  was  called  James  “Printer”  because  he 
helped  print  and  proofread  the  Eliot  Bible. 

Indian  'preachers : M issionaries : 

1669-1677  Joseph  Tuckappawill  1651-1680  John  Eliot 

1698-1717  James  Printer  1680-1715  Grindall  Rawson 


1 68  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 


38.  Harwich.  Satucket  Praying  Town. 

The  Indian  praying  town  of  Satucket  (Sawkattucket,  Saquetucket  or  Sahqua- 
tucket)  was  located  chiefly  in  the  northwest  corner  of  the  present  township  of 
Harwich,  though  some  of  the  Indians  may  have  lived  in  what  is  now  Brewster 
(the  original  parish  of  Harwich)  and  in  Dennis.  In  1685  (with  Dennis)  there 
were  1 21  adult  natives  in  this  town,  and  in  1694  there  were  14  praying  fam- 
ilies (about  84  persons).  By  1712  there  were  140;  in  1762  64  Indians;  but  in 
1 792  there  were  only  six  or  seven  Indians  left.  Mr.  Treat  was  the  active  mission- 
ary here. 

Indian  'preachers: 

1685—1714  Manasseh  ca.  1714  Menekish 

1711-1714  Hercules  1762-1770  John  Ralph 


Missionaries: 

1674—1681  Richard  Bourne  1675—1717  Samuel  Treat 

1681—1697  John  Cotton,  Jr.  1708—1726  Daniel  Greenleaf 


39.  Kent,  Conn.  Scatacook  Moravian  Indian  Mission } 1740. 

In  1740  the  Reverend  Christian  Henry  Rauch,  a Moravian  missionary,  es- 
tablished an  Indian  mission  at  Shekomeko,  New  York,  some  22  miles  west  of 
Scatacook.  Through  his  preaching  numerous  converts  were  made  at  Scatacook, 
which  by  that  time  had  become  the  headquarters  for  the  remnants  of  the  several 
tribes  of  the  lower  Housatonic  valley  in  western  Connecticut.  By  1752  about 
120  Indians  had  been  baptized  there,  virtually  all  the  inhabitants,  including 
the  sachem.  A school  and  a church  were  built  and  the  congregation  flourished 
for  a few  years,  but  the  mission  was  abandoned  in  1763. 

Missionary  : 

1742—1744  Christian  Henry  Rauch 


40.  Lakeville.  Ne?nasket  Indian  Churchy  1665. 

The  first  Indian  minister  of  this  church  may  also  be  considered  the  first  Chris- 
tian martyr  of  his  race.  He  was  John  Sassamon  (or  Wussausmon),  a Punkapoag 
Indian,  born  at  Dorchester,  served  with  the  English  in  the  Pequot  War,  1637, 
became  a convert  and  was  educated  in  the  Indian  department  of  Harvard  Col- 
lege, was  employed  as  a schoolmaster  at  Natick,  and  is  said  to  have  aided  John 
Eliot  in  translating  the  Indian  Bible.  After  a time  he  left  Natick  to  become 
King  Philip’s  secretary.  Subsequently  he  was  chosen  minister  of  this  church  at 
Nemasket  (then  in  Middleborough,  now  Lakeville),  where  he  was  given  a 
house  lot  in  Assawompsett  Neck.  On  29  January  1675/6  he  was  found 
drowned  under  the  ice  in  Assawompsett  Pond  with  marks  of  violence  upon  his 
body.  Three  Indian  henchmen  of  Philip  were  tried,  convicted  and  executed 
for  his  murder,  there  being  little  doubt  but  that  it  occurred  by  Philip’s  command 
because  of  Sassamon’s  success  in  converting  the  Indians  to  Christianity. 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1649  169 

There  were  70  Indians  here  in  1685  but  early  in  the  next  century  this  church 
united  with  the  church  at  Titicut. 

Indian  ministers: 

1673—1675  John  Sassamon  ca.  1685  Stephen 

M issionaries: 

1669—1697  John  Cotton,  Jr.  1707— 1744  Peter  Thacher 

1689—1727  Samuel  Danforth 

The  meeting  house,  built  ca.  1665,  was  burned  in  King  Philip’s  War. 

41.  Lakeville.  A ssawompett  Indian  Churchy  1665. 

Probably  Sassamon  was  also  the  first  minister  of  this  church  (see  Nemasket 
above).  In  1666  all  these  congregations  (Nemasket,  Titicut  and  Assawompsett) 
were  in  a flourishing  condition  though  they  may  not  have  been  organized  as 
churches  at  that  early  date.  The  Assawompsett  meeting  house  was  near  the  old 
Pond  Church.  In  1698  there  were  20  houses  (or  80  persons)  in  this  place  which 
was  then  in  Middleborough  and  is  now  in  Lakeville.  Assawompsett  Pond  is  the 
largest  pond  in  Massachusetts. 

John  Hiacoomes  was  the  son  of  the  native  preacher  of  that  name  at  Chappa- 
quiddick  in  Edgartown.  The  Assawompsett  church  eventually  was  absorbed  by 
the  Titicut  church. 

Native  ministers: 

1673—1675  John  Sassamon  1698—1718  John  Hiacoomes 

1698-1711  Jocelin 

Missionaries: 

1669—1697  John  Cotton,  Jr.  1707— 1744  Peter  Thacher 

1689—1727  Samuel  Danforth 

42.  Lakeville.  Quittacus  Praying  Town. 

The  praying  town  of  Quittacus  (or  Aquittacus)  on  Great  Quittacus  Pond  in 
Lakeville  consisted  of  seven  houses  (about  42  persons)  in  1698.  The  inhabit- 
ants were  associated  with  Assawompsett  church. 

43.  Lancaster.  N ashaway  Indian  Town. 

The  word  Nashaway  means  “land  between  the  rivers,”  a perfect  description 
of  the  central  part  of  the  town  of  Lancaster.  Yet  while  it  contained  several  pray- 
ing Indians,  including  the  sachem,  Sholan,  Nashaway  was  only  one  of  the  “hope- 
ful” towns.  In  1648  Mr.  Eliot  wrote:  Sholan,  “the  great  sachym  of  Nashaway 
doth  embrace  the  Gospel  & pray  unto  God,  I have  been  foure  times  there  this 
Summer,  and  there  be  more  people  by  far  then  amongst  us,  and  sundry  of  them 
do  gladly  hear  the  word  of  God,  but  it  is  neer  40  miles  off  and  I can  but  sel- 
dom goe  to  them;  whereat  they  are  troubled  and  desire  I should  oftener,  and 
stay  longer  when  I come.” 

John  Prescott,  the  founder  of  the  English  settlement  at  Lancaster  who  had 


170  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

discovered  the  new  way  (Bay  Path)  to  Connecticut,  guided  Eliot  the  next 
year  to  Amoskeag,  New  Hampshire,  1649,  by  way  of  Wamesit  (Lowell).  The 
Apostle  preached  again  in  Lancaster  in  1649  where  “their  good  affection  is 
manifested  to  me  and  to  the  good  work  I have  in  hand.”  (See  John  Eliot’s  let- 
ters in  Edward  Winslow’s  The  Glorious  Progress  of  the  Gospel  amongst  the  In- 
dians in  New  England , 1649,  and  in  his  own  A further  Discovery  of  the  'pres- 
ent state  of  the  Indians. ) Washacum,  in  the  second  precinct  of  Lancaster,  now 
Sterling,  was  the  summer  residence  of  the  Nashaways.  Jethro,  a member  of  the 
Natick  church,  was  sent  to  Washacum  as  minister  and  teacher  in  1674  but  little 
was  accomplished  here  for  King  Philip’s  War  soon  broke  out.  Lancaster  was  at- 
tacked 22  August  1675  and  several  settlers  were  killed,  while  on  10  February 
1675/6  Lancaster  was  sacked  and  burned,  Mrs.  Rowlandson  and  many  others 
were  carried  away  captive  or  massacred  and  the  town  had  to  be  abandoned  for 
two  or  three  years.  Most  of  the  Nashaway  Indians  did  not  return.  (See  The 
Narrative  of  the  Captivity  and  Restoration  of  Mrs.  Mary  Rowlandson , Frederick 
L.  Weis,  Editor  (Boston,  1930),  2— 11,  83—86. 

44.  Little  Compton,  Rhode  Island.  Sakonnet  Praying  Town. 

As  early  as  1674  these  Indians  were  under  the  charge  of  Mr.  Cotton  who 
preached  regularly  to  them  with  the  Coxit  Indians  of  Westport  at  Acushnet  in 
Dartmouth.  In  1698  there  were  40  praying  Indians  here,  20  of  whom  were 
men.  A native  preacher,  Samuel  Church  (called  Mr.  Sam,  alias  Sochawahham) 
preached  here  in  1685  and  may  have  served  here  until  171 1,  when  he  was  sta- 
tioned at  Fall  River.  In  1685  we  find  “at  Sekonett,  Mr.  Sam  sometimes  teacher, 
now  George”  where  90  Indians  were  under  his  care.  At  that  time  Little  Comp- 
ton was  part  of  Dartmouth  in  Plymouth  Colony.  Later  it  was  ceded  to  Rhode 
Island. 

Indian  preachers: 

1685-1711  Samuel  Church  1714-1718  John  Simons 

ca.  1685  George  1714—1718  Benjamin  Nompash 

Missionaries: 

1669—1697  John  Cotton,  Jr.  1704—1748  Richard  Billings 

1 697— 1 700  Eiiphalet  Adams 

45.  Littleton.  Nashobah  Praying  Town. 

Nashobah,  near  Nagog  Pond,  was  the  sixth  Indian  praying  town.  The  area 
of  this  village  was  four  miles  square.  In  the  records  of  the  General  Court,  14 
May  1654,  is  the  following:  “In  ansr  to  the  peticon  of  Mr.  Jno.  Elliott,  on  be- 
half of  seuerall  Indians,  the  Court  graunts  his  request,  viz.:  liberty  for  the  in- 
habitants of  Nashop  [Nashobah]  and  to  the  inhabitants  of  Ogkoontiquonkames 
[Marlborough]  and  also  to  the  inhabitants  of  Hasnemesuchoth  [Grafton]  to 
erect  seuerall  Indian  townes  in  the  places  propunded,  wth  convenjent  acomo- 
dacon  to  each,  provided  they  prjudice  not  any  former  graunts;  nor  shall  they 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1649  17 1 

dispose  of  it  wth  out  leave  first  had  and  obtajned  from  this  Court.”  Here  in 
Nashobah  in  1674  there  were  ten  families,  or  about  50  souls.  The  land  was 
fertile,  well  stored  with  meadows  and  woods,  and  good  ponds  for  fishing  nearby. 
They  also  had  apple  orchards  which  furnished  them  with  cider,  the  cause  of  much 
drunkenness  among  them.  Their  minister  was  John  Thomas,  a sober  and  pious 
man. 

The  town  was  deserted  during  King  Philip’s  War.  They  went  first  to  dwell 
with  Mr.  John  Hoar  at  Concord  but  were  soon  sent  down  to  Deer  Island,  Boston 
Harbor,  where  they  suffered  greatly.  On  11  November  1676  they  were  back 
at  Concord,  still  numbering  50,  ten  men  and  40  women  and  children.  Later 
most  of  them  settled  at  Natick  and  very  few  of  them  ever  returned  to  Nashobah. 

Indian  f readier: 

1669—1714  John  Thomas 
Missionary : 

1654—1676  John  Eliot 

46.  Lowell.  Wamesit  Praying  Town. 

Wamesit  (Pawtuckett  or  Pentucket)  was  the  fifth  Indian  praying  town.  It 
was  situated  at  the  junction  of  the  Concord  and  Merrimac  Rivers  and  at  first 
consisted  of  two  settlements  about  two  miles  apart  which  were  later  joined  as 
one  town.  The  Indians  hereabouts  were  almost  entirely  destroyed  by  the  pest 
of  1612/3  and  were  further  reduced  in  the  war  with  the  Mohawks  by  death, 
wounds  and  captivity.  In  1670  there  were  15  families,  or  about  75  souls,  but  by 
1674  this  number  had  grown  to  250  Indians,  men,  women  and  children.  The 
settlement  within  the  bounds  of  what  is  now  Lowell  was  at  that  time  partly  in 
Chelmsford  and  partly  in  Tewksbury. 

The  plantation  consisted  of  about  2,500  acres  of  land  which  was  fertile  and 
yielded  an  abundance  of  corn.  Good  fishing  was  also  to  be  had  here — salmon, 
shad,  eels,  sturgeon,  bass,  etc.  During  the  fishing  season  many  strange  Indians 
resorted  to  this  place,  which  was  harmful  to  the  progress  of  its  religious  de- 
velopment. 

Mr.  Eliot  preached  here  in  1649  and  frequently  thereafter.  About  1669  a 
praying  town  was  established.  The  minister  from  1670  to  1675  was  called  Sam- 
uel. He  was  the  son  of  the  ruler,  Numphow,  and  could  speak  and  write  in  Eng- 
lish and  in  the  Indian  tongue,  having  been  one  of  those  who  were  “bred  up  at 
school  at  the  charge  of  the  Corporation  for  the  Indians.” 

Messrs.  Eliot  and  Gookin  visited  this  place  each  May  when  Mr.  Eliot 
preached  not  only  to  the  praying  Indians  but  also  to  those  strange  Indians  who 
could  be  persuaded  to  hear  him.  By  this  means,  on  5 May  1674,  Wannalancet, 
eldest  son  of  old  Pasaconway,  chief  sachem  of  Pawtuckett,  became  a praying 
Indian  and  attended  meetings  each  Sunday  thereafter. 

At  the  time  of  King  Philip’s  War  Symon  Beckom,  the  native  preacher,  and 
George  the  teacher  with  many  of  the  tribe  escaped  to  Pennacook  (Concord), 


1 7 2 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

New  Hampshire,  and  joined  Wannalancet  there  where  they  remained  for  a 
season,  but  by  1684  they  had  returned  to  Wamesit  and  there  was  stated  preach- 
ing here  at  that  time. 

Native  'preachers: 

1669— 1675  George  1675—1685  Symon  Beckom 

1670- 1675  Samuel  (H.  C.) 

Missionary : 

1649—1675  John  Eliot 

47.  Marlborough.  O kkokonimesit  or  O kommakamesit  Praying  Town. 
This  village,  originally  granted  in  1654  (see  Littleton),  contained  in  1674 

several  church  members  affiliated  with  Natick  church  and  about  ten  families,  or 
50  souls,  and  covered  about  6,000  acres  of  land.  Much  of  it  was  very  good  land, 
well  husbanded,  and  yielded  plenty  of  corn.  There  were  also  several  good  or- 
chards here  which  they  had  planted.  But  the  English  at  Marlborough  so  greatly 
outnumbered  them  that  the  Indians  did  not  flourish  here  and  were  uncomfort- 
able in  their  situation.  Their  minister  was  named  Solomon. 

During  King  Philip’s  War  the  Indians  of  Grafton,  Hopkinton  (Ashland), 
Oxford  (Sutton)  and  Dudley  (Webster)  abandoned  those  towns  and  settled  in 
Marlborough,  but  not  for  long.  For  they  were  removed  to  Deer  Island,  Boston 
Harbor,  until  after  the  war  when  most  of  the  survivors  eventually  settled  at 
Natick  or  in  other  Indian  plantations. 

Indian  preachers : 

1669—1675  Nausquonit  (retired)  1669—1675  Sampson 

1669—1675  Job  (H.  C.)  1675—1676  Solomon 

Missionary : 

1654—1675  John  Eliot 

48.  Mash  PEE.  Indian  C ongregational  Church  at  Mashpee. 

Due  to  the  efforts  of  the  Reverend  Richard  Bourne  the  present  township  of 
Mashpee,  16  square  miles  in  area,  was  bought  and  set  aside  forever  as  an  In- 
dian township.  The  deed  was  drawn  “so  that  no  part  or  parcel”  of  the  lands 
“could  be  bought  by  or  sold  to  any  white  person  or  persons  without  the  consent 
of  all  the  said  Indians;  not  even  with  the  consent  of  the  General  Court.”  This 
instrument,  with  the  foregoing  condition,  was  then  ratified  by  the  General 
Court  of  Plymouth  Colony. 

“The  Reverend  John  Eliot  went  down  to  Mashpee,  where  Richard  Bourne, 
a godly  man,  on  the  17th  of  August,  1670,  was  ordained  minister  of  an  Indian 
church  which  was  gathered  upon  that  day,  and  the  Indians  and  such  of  their 
children  as  were  present  were  baptized.”  This  was  the  mother  church  of  all 
the  praying  Indians  on  the  Cape,  quite  a number  of  whom,  in  the  several  pray- 
ing towns  in  which  they  lived,  held  membership  in  the  Mashpee  church.  As  in 
all  the  other  Indian  Congregational  churches  the  ministers  and  missionaries  of 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1649  173 

this  church  were  supported  in  part  or  wholly  by  the  “Company  for  Propagating 
the  Gospel  among  the  Indians  of  New  England  and  Parts  Adjacent’’  and  the 
Daniel  Williams  Trust  Fund  for  the  Perpetuation  of  Preaching  to  the  Indians 
until  the  year  1786,  and  thereafter,  in  the  case  of  Mashpee  and  other  churches, 
but  principally  Mashpee,  by  the  Williams  Fund  and  until  1858  by  the  “Society 
for  Propagating  the  Gospel  among  the  Indians  and  Others  in  North  America, 
1787.” 

The  Reverend  Daniel  Williams,  a London  clergyman,  died  in  171 1 and  left 
by  will  the  fund  which  bears  his  name.  “I  give  the  remainder  of  my  estate,  to 
be  paid  yearly  to  the  College  of  Cambridge  in  New  England,  or  to  such  as  are 
usually  employed  to  manage  the  blessed  work  of  converting  the  poor  Indians 
there,  to  promote  which  I design  this  part  of  my  gift.”  In  1775  the  New  Eng- 
land Company  and  the  Williams  Fund  were  each  supporting  16  missionaries. 
Mr.  Hawley  received  from  the  Fund  $100  yearly,  Mr.  Phinehas  Fish  from 
$390  to  $433.  Today  the  income  is  about  $700,  and  two-thirds  of  this  fund 
is  still  spent  at  Mashpee.  During  the  ministry  of  Mr.  Hawley,  in  1757,  the 
present  meeting  house  was  built  by  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gos- 
pel in  New  England.  On  9 September  1923  President  Abbott  Lawrence  Low- 
ell, as  President  of  Harvard  College,  the  Trustee  of  the  Williams  Fund,  took 
part  in  the  rededication  of  the  church  building.  At  that  time  the  following  me- 
morial was  erected: 

OLD  INDIAN  CHURCH 
BUILT  IN  1684 
REMODELED  IN  I 7 I 7 
REDEDICATED  IN  I 923 
IN  MEMORY  OF  THE  FRIENDS  WHO  LABORED 
AMONG  THE  INDIANS. 

TO  THE  ONES  WHO  GAVE  MORE 
GROUNDED  HOPES  OF  ADORATION 
OF  THE  THINGS  OF  GOD. 

IN  I 71  I DANIEL  WILLIAMS  LEFT  A TRUST  FUND  IN  CHARGE  OF 
HARVARD  COLLEGE  FOR  THE  PERPETUATION  OF  PREACHING  TO  THE 

INDIANS 

INDIAN  PREACHERS 
SIMON  POPMONET 
SOLOMON  BRIANT 
WILLIAM  APES 

JOSEPH  AMOS,  THE  BLIND  PREACHER 
THAT  IT  MAY  STAND  IN  ALL  FUTURE  YEARS  THE 
INDESTRUCTIBLE  RECORD  OF  A RUGGED  RACE 

NOW  TO  THEIR  GENTLE  MEMORY  BE  NAUGHT 
BUT  KIND  REGARDS  AND  TO  THEIR  QUIET 
ASHES  — PEACE. 


1 74  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

The  Congregational  Indian  Church,  founded  in  1660,  became  extinct  in 
1858  and  the  present  Indian  Church  is  now  affiliated  with  the  Baptist  denomi- 
nation. 

In  1674  there  were  27  Indians  in  full  communion  with  the  church  and  90 
baptized  Indians.  By  1693  there  were  214  adult  Indians  in  this  congregation. 
In  1 698,  263  Indians  dwelt  here.  In  1762  there  were  75  families  of  the  red  men ; 
but  by  1 792  there  were  280  Indians,  largely  of  mixed  blood.  By  1 800  there  were 
380  souls  in  80  Indian  houses,  and  during  that  year  Isaac  Simon  died,  the  last 
Indian  of  Mashpee  of  pure  Indian  blood.  By  1812  there  were  357  worship- 
pers, but  by  1930  the  population  was  361,  all  of  some  Indian  descent  but  mostly 
mixed  with  Negro  or  Portuguese  blood.  In  1945  there  were  343. 

Native  freachers: 


ca.  1685  Josiah  Shanks 
1682—1725  Simon  Popmonnit 
1720-1775  Solomon  Briant 
Ministers  and  missionaries: 
1662—1682  Richard  Bourne 
1682—1719  Shear jashub  Bourne 
1 693— 172 1 Roland  Cotton 
1719—1764  Ezra  Bourne 


1725—1759  Joseph  Briant 
1833—1855  William  Apes 
ca.  1840  Joseph  Amos  (Baptist) 


1 729-1 742 
1754-1758 
1757-1807 
1 808-1 8 1 1 
1812-1840 


Joseph  Bourne 
Joseph  Green 
Gideon  Hawley 
Elisha  Clap 
Phinehas  Fish 


Meeting  houses:  ( 1)  1660;  (2)  1684;  (3)  1714;  (4)  1758,  built  by  the  New 
England  Company,  remodelled  1817,  rededicated  1923. 


49.  Mashpee.  C anaumet  Praying  Town. 

The  small  praying  towns  of  Canaumet  (or  Codtanmut),  Shumuit  (or  Ashu- 
muit)  in  Mashpee,  and  Weesquobs  nearby  contained  in  1674  22  praying  In- 
dians (12  adults  and  ten  young  people)  of  whom  13  could  read,  seven  could 
write  and  two  could  read  English.  These  villages  were  supplied  from  time  to 
time  by  the  ministers  from  Mashpee  and  were  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  mis- 
sionaries of  that  place.  At  other  times  they  attended  the  Mashpee  church. 
Indian  freachers: 

ca.  1685  Josiah  Shanks  1685—1725  Simon  Popmonnit 

Missionaries: 

1662—1685  Richard  Bourne  1694—1721  Roland  Cotton 

50.  Mashpee.  C otuit  Praymg  T own. 

The  small  praying  towns  of  Cotuit  (partly  in  Mashpee  and  partly  in  the 
southwest  portion  of  Barnstable),  Pawpoesit,  Santuit  (Satuit),  together  with 
Mashpee  Church  and  Waquoit  (Wakoquet)  in  Falmouth,  contained  95  praying 
Indians  (70  adults  and  25  young  men  and  maids),  of  whom  24  could  read,  ten 
could  write,  and  two  could  read  English.  The  Indian  preachers  and  missionaries 
of  Mashpee  church  officiated  here  and  at  the  four  following  praying  towns. 


1 948 ] The  New  England  Company  of  1649  175 

Later  the  people  of  these  small  towns  went  to  the  center  of  the  town  to  Mashpee 
church. 

51.  Mashpee.  Pawpoesit  Praying  Town. 

(Same  as  Cotuit,  No.  50  above.) 

52.  Mashpee.  Santuit  (or  Satait)  Praying  Town. 

(Same  as  Cotuit,  No.  50  above.) 

53.  Mashpee.  Shumuit  (or  A shumuit)  Praying  Town. 

(Same  as  Canaumet,  No.  49  above.) 

54.  Mashpee.  W eesquobs  Praying  Town. 

(Same  as  Canaumet,  No.  49  above.) 

55.  Men  don.  Quinshefauge  (or  Nipmuc)  Praying  Town. 

The  Quinshepauge  praying  town,  on  the  edge  of  Nipmuc  Pond,  was  or- 
ganized by  John  Eliot,  the  Apostle  to  the  Indians,  before  King  Philip’s  War 
but  was  abandoned  at  that  time  when  Philip’s  Indians  burned  the  meeting  house 
of  the  English  settlers  (built  in  1668/9)  in  1675.  They  returned  soon  after  the 
war.  Their  native  preachers  are  unknown,  if  indeed  they  had  any,  except  as  they 
may  have  attended  worship  at  Grafton. 

Missionaries: 

1675-1680  John  Eliot  1680—1715  Grindall  Rawson 

56.  Middleborough.  Titicut  Indian  Church } 1665. 

The  Indian  Church  of  Titicut  (or  Kektekicut)  was  organized  in  1674  or 
thereabouts,  though  a meeting  house  had  been  built  here  as  early  as  1665.  In 
the  former  year  there  were  35  Indian  families  (about  100  persons)  in  the  con- 
gregation; in  1685  there  were  70  adult  Indians;  but  by  1694  there  were  only 
about  40  left.  The  church  lasted  until  1760  when  the  few  remaining  Indians 
began  to  worship  with  the  whites  at  the  Independent  Church  of  Titicut. 

Probably  John  Sassamon  was  the  first  minister  of  this  church.  He  was  fol- 
lowed by  Stephen  who  officiated  here  in  1685.  Charles  Aham  was  the  minister 
in  1698  and  was  followed  by  Nehemiah  Abel  who  later  removed  to  Slocum’s 
Island  where  he  was  the  teacher  in  1712.  Thomas  Sekins  succeeded  Nehemiah 
Abel.  Thomas  Felix,  who  also  served  as  the  local  magistrate,  was  minister  in 
1712.  He  was  followed  by  John  Simon  who  removed  early,  for  he  was  settled 
at  Sakonnet,  Little  Compton,  1714—1718.  Joseph  Joshnin  served  from  1710  to 
1718  and  probably  much  longer,  while  John  Symons,  the  last  native  minister 
on  record,  preached  here  from  1747  to  1757.  John  Cotton,  Jr.,  preached  here 
regularly,  as  did  Peter  Thacher,  from  1708  to  1713,  and  probably  until  his 
death  in  1 744. 


1 7 6 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

Indian  ministers: 

1673—1675  John  Sassamon 
ca.  1685  Stephen 
ca.  1698  Charles  Aham 
ante  1712  Nehemiah  Abel 
ante  1712  Thomas  Sekins 
Missionaries: 

1669—1697  John  Cotton,  Jr. 

1689—1727  Samuel  Danforth 
Meeting  house:  1665  ; this  one  or  its  successor  was  later  used  by  the  Separatist 
Church  of  Middleborough. 

Montville,  Conn.  Mohegan  Praying  Towny  1660,  see  Norwich. 

57.  Montville,  Conn.  Mohegan  Baptist  Church,  1770. 

This  church  was  probably  in  or  near  the  Mohegan  reservation  of  2,700  acres 
in  the  town  of  Montville.  The  Reverend  Samson  Occum,  a celebrated  Indian 
preacher  educated  by  Dr.  Eleazer  Wheelock,  shepherded  the  first  contingent 
of  Mohegan  Indians  from  this  place  to  Oneida,  New  York,  where  ultimately 
most  of  the  Mohegan  tribe  went  including,  perhaps,  this  congregation.  In  1831 
a meeting  house  was  built  in  the  Mohegan  reservation  for  those  who  remained 
and  the  Reverend  Anson  Gleason  began  his  labors  here  in  1832. 

58.  Mount  Desert  Island,  Maine.  St.  Sauveur  Mission,  1613. 

In  June,  1613,  two  French  Jesuit  priests,  Father  Peter  Biard  and  Father 
Ennemond  Masse,  began  the  mission  of  St.  Sauveur  at  Fernald’s  Point  at  the 
entrance  of  Somes  Sound,  Mount  Desert  Island.  But  the  colonists  were  expelled 
shortly  after  as  trespassers  on  English  soil  by  Captain  Samuel  Argali  of  Virginia 
who  destroyed  the  mission  and  took  Father  Biard  with  him  to  Virginia. 

59.  Mystic,  Conn.  Indian  Mission  at  Mystic,  1659. 

The  Reverend  William  Tompson  (Harvard  College,  1653)  lived  here  in 
1659  while  he  was  a missionary  for  the  “Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel 
among  the  Indians  of  New  England”  and  had  a mission  among  the  Pequots 
(Mohegans)  in  this  place. 

60.  Nantucket.  Occawan  Indian  Church,  1665. 

At  the  time  of  the  settlement  of  Nantucket  by  the  English  in  1661  there 
were  about  3,000  Indians  on  this  island.  By  the  year  1674  there  were  300  pray- 
ing families.  The  church  at  that  time  consisted  of  30  Indians  in  full  com- 
munion, 20  of  them  males  and  ten  females.  Forty  children  had  been  baptized. 
The  natives  were  then  settled  in  three  praying  towns:  Oggawame  (Occawan), 
half  way  on  the  road  to  Siasconset,  near  Gibbs  Swamp;  Wammasquid;  and 
Squatesit. 


ca.  1712  Thomas  Felix 
1698—1714  John  Simons 
1710—1718  Joseph  Joshnin 
1747—1757  John  Symons 

1707—1744  Peter  Thacher 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1 649  177 

Peter  Folger  came  to  Nantucket  in  1663.  He  could  speak  and  write  in  the 
Indian  language  and  must  have  preached  often  in  the  Occawan  meeting  house 
and  at  other  places  on  the  island.  The  English  settlers  in  1674,  we  are  told, 
numbered  27  families,  many  of  them  being  Anabaptists  and  the  rest  Quakers. 

Mr.  Cotton  visited  the  island  during  that  year.  He  spoke  often  to  the  Nan- 
tucket Indians  who  worked  each  summer  around  Boston  as  farm  laborers  and 
to  help  get  in  the  harvests.  Many  were  pious,  Mr.  Cotton  declared,  most  of 
them  “sober,  diligent,  and  industrious,”  which  he  calls  commendable  qualifica- 
tions. He  desires  and  prays,  however,  that  all  praying  Indians  may  more  and 
more  increase  in  virtue  and  piety — so  obviously  he  felt  that  there  was  still  room 
for  improvement. 

In  1694  there  were  500  adults  in  five  assemblies  of  praying  Indians  and 
three  churches,  of  which  two  were  Congregational  and  one  Baptist.  Four  years 
later,  when  the  Reverend  Messrs.  Danforth  and  Rawson  visited  the  island, 
there  were  still  500  adult  praying  Indians,  two  churches  with  20  communi- 
cants each,  five  congregations  and  one  meeting  house.  The  churches  continued 
to  flourish  up  to  the  year  1700.  After  that  the  Indian  population  declined  slow- 
ly until,  on  16  August  1763,  there  were  358  praying  Indians  of  whom  220 
died  of  a fever  the  next  fall  and  winter,  reducing  their  number  to  138  on  16 
February  1764.  In  1784  there  were  35  left,  and  in  1792  there  remained  four 
males  and  16  females.  The  last  Indian  of  the  Nantucket  tribe,  Abraham  Api 
Quady,  died  in  1854  at  the  age  of  84  years. 

At  the  height  of  their  strength,  however,  there  were  four  Indian  meeting 
houses,  the  first  being  at  Occawan,  five  miles  east  of  the  town  of  Nantucket,  the 
second  at  Myercommet,  south  of  the  town,  the  third  near  Polpis,  northeast  of 
the  town,  and  the  fourth  at  Plainfield. 

With  the  decline  of  the  Indian  population  after  1 700  the  number  of  native 
preachers  also  declined  until,  by  1727,  there  were  none  left  on  the  island.  Pre- 
vious to  this  time,  however,  the  Reverend  Samuel  Wiswall,  later  of  Edgartown, 
preached  here  from  1710  to  1712  and,  in  1728,  the  Reverend  Joseph  Baxter 
baptized  35  Indians  on  Nantucket.  In  1727  the  Reverend  Timothy  White 
was  employed  by  the  “Company  for  Propagating  the  Gospel  among  the  Indians 
of  New  England  and  Parts  Adjacent”  to  preach  to  the  Nantucket  Indians, 
which  he  continued  to  do  each  month  from  October,  1728,  to  1751.  There- 
after the  missionaries  on  Martha’s  Vineyard  made  stated  visits  to  the  Indian 
churches  of  Nantucket  until  this  first  Indian  church  became  extinct  about  the 
year  1800. 

Indian  ministers: 

1665-1670  John  Hiacoomes  1 710-1718  Jonahauwasuit 

1665—1698  John  Gibbs,  alias  Assa-  ca.  1718  Jonas  Asosit  or  Hasaway 
sammogh  ca.  1770  Benjamin  Tarshema 

ca.  1698  Job  Muckemuck 


1 7 8 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 


Missionaries : 

1665—1681  Thomas  Mayhew,  Sr. 
1665—1667  John  Cotton,  Jr. 
1665—1690  Peter  Folger 
1673—1689  John  Mayhew 


1694—1758  Experience  Mayhew 
1710— 1712  Samuel  Wiswall 
1 727-1 75  1 Timothy  White 
1 767-1 806  Zachariah  Mayhew 


61.  Nantucket.  Second  Indian  Churchy  1694. 

This  church  was  founded  between  1674  and  1694.  John  Asherman  was  the 
native  preacher  in  1698  and  at  that  time  there  were  20  communicants.  How 
long  it  continued  to  exist  we  do  not  know,  but  probably  by  1727  it  had  merged 
with  the  first  Indian  church  and  thus  enjoyed  the  preaching  of  Mr.  White. 
Caleb,  a native  minister,  preached  at  another  church  than  the  first  church,  which 
was  perhaps  this  one. 

Native  ministers: 

ca.  1674  Caleb  ca.  1698  John  Asherman 

Missionaries: 

1710— 1712  Samuel  Wiswall  1727—1752  Timothy  White 


62.  Nantucket.  Third  or  Indian  Baptist  C hurchy  1694. 

Save  for  the  fact  that  such  a church  existed  in  1694  we  know  nothing  about 
this  church.  By  1698  it  may  have  become  extinct  since  Messrs.  Danforth  and 
Rawson  do  not  mention  it. 

63.  Nantucket.  W ammasquid  Praying  Town. 

This  was  one  of  the  three  praying  towns  in  1674.  The  names  of  the  Indian 
preachers  on  Nantucket  at  that  time  were  John  Gibbs  (at  Occawan),  Joseph, 
Samuel  and  Caleb  at  the  other  two  towns  (i.e.,  Wammasquid  and  Squatesit)  but 
which  teachers  w’ere  assigned  to  each  of  these  three  towns  is  not  known.  In  1698 
there  were  five  praying  towns,  the  ministers  being  Job  Muckemuck  (at  Occa- 
wan) ; John  Asherman;  Quequenah,  Netowah,  a man  greatly  esteemed,  and 
Peter  Hayt,  a well-carriaged  and  serious  man;  Wunnohson  and  Daniel  Spotso; 
and  Codpoganut  and  Noah,  a zealous  preacher.  It  is  difficult  to  assign  them  to 
the  several  villages.  (See  also  towns  numbered  64  and  65  below.)  The  resident 
missionaries  to  these  Indian  churches  and  praying  towns  were: 

1674—1690  Peter  Folger  1727— 1751  Timothy  White 

1 7 1 0—  1 7 1 2 Samuel  Wiswall 


64.  Nantucket.  Squatesit  Praying  Town. 

This  was  the  third  praying  town  in  1674.  (See  No.  63  above.) 

65.  Nantucket.  Fijth  Praying  Town. 

This  was  the  fifth  praying  town  in  1 698,  name  unknown.  (See  No.  63  above.) 


179 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1 649 

66.  Natick.  Indian  Church  at  Naticky  1660.  Congregational. 

The  Reverend  John  Fdiot  (Jesus  College,  Cambridge,  1622). 

The  Reverend  John  Eliot,  Jr.  (Harvard  College,  1656). 

This  was  the  first  Indian  church  to  be  founded  in  the  Bay  Colony.  It  was 
gathered  by  the  Reverend  John  Eliot,  the  “Apostle”  to  the  Indians,  in  1660, 
though  he  had  preached  regularly  to  the  Natick  Indians  every  fortnight  since 
1646  when  they  were  living  at  Nonantum  in  Newton.  (Nonantum  means  “re- 
joicing”; Natick,  “a  place  of  hills.”) 

By  1650  the  English  settlers  were  increasing  rapidly  in  numbers  in  the  vi- 
cinity of  Nonantum  and  Mr.  Eliot  believed  that  in  some  instances  they  were 
exerting  a bad  influence  upon  the  Indians.  He  felt  that  the  Indians  would  fare 
better  in  a more  remote  situation.  Moreover,  their  territory  in  Newton  was 
growing  too  small  for  them  and  he  wished  for  much  more  room  in  order  to 
gather  together  the  natives  from  the  surrounding  countryside  into  a homoge- 
neous community.  He  wished  to  make  a fair  experiment  of  civilizing  them.  If 
he  could  be  successful  in  forming  one  well-governed,  Christianized  town,  he 
hoped  to  form  many  more  after  the  same  model.  The  territory  a dozen  miles  to 
the  west  was  still  a wilderness,  seemed  to  answer  the  needs  of  the  Indians,  so  it 
was  chosen  by  them  and  the  place  was  called  Natick.  Then  the  Indians  removed 
from  Nonantum  to  Natick  where  6,000  acres  of  land  was  granted  to  them  in 
1651  by  the  General  Court  of  Massachusetts.  Three  long  streets  were  laid  out, 
two  on  one  side  of  the  river  and  one  on  the  other.  To  each  house  built  was  at- 
tached a piece  of  ground.  Most  of  the  houses  were  built  after  the  Indian  fashion, 
but  a school  house  and  a meeting  house,  25  by  50  feet,  were  erected  in  the  Eng- 
lish style.  A fort,  enclosed  by  a stockade,  was  also  built.  Finally,  the  Indians  con- 
structed a bridge  80  feet  long  over  the  river  to  connect  the  different  parts  of 
the  town. 

The  natives  were  then  organized  as  a civil  government  with  their  own  offi- 
cers and,  in  1660,  as  a church  with  native  officers,  teachers,  deacons,  members  of 
the  church,  and  baptized  children.  Ten  years  later  the  church  consisted  of  50 
members.  In  1674  there  were  29  families,  or  145  individuals,  living  here,  and 
in  1698  there  were  59  men,  51  women  and  70  children.  The  church  was  dis- 
solved soon  after  1698  at  which  time  there  was  a small  church  of  seven  men  and 
three  women.  Services  were  continued,  however,  and  a new  church  was  or- 
ganized 3 December  1729  to  include  the  few  English  inhabitants  of  the 
town.  This  second  church  was  dissolved  in  1752.  A second  English  and  Indian 
church  was  formed  in  1753  but  again  was  dissolved  in  1803,  by  which  time 
the  English  were  settled  in  a different  part  of  the  town  of  Natick.  The  relative 
rights  and  numbers  of  the  English  and  Indians  were  responsible  for  the  several 
organizations  and  dissolutions  of  the  church. 

Being  a wandering  people,  members  of  the  Natick  church  frequently  lived 
in  the  several  neighboring  praying  towns  and  many  of  the  choicest  members 
of  the  church  were  sent  out  to  serve  as  ministers,  elders,  deacons  and  preachers 


1 80  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

in  these  other  towns.  By  1671  a group  of  Natick  Indians,  living  in  Grafton, 
were  dismissed  to  form  a church  there.  (See  Grafton.) 

During  King  Philip’s  War  the  praying  Indians  remained  friendly  to  the 
English,  often  serving  as  scouts  and  spies  for  the  colonial  troops.  This  aggra- 
vated the  resentment  of  the  pagan  Indians  against  the  Christian  Indians  and 
forced  the  latter  to  remove  from  their  exposed  frontier  towns.  Thus,  those  liv- 
ing at  Pakachoog  (Auburn),  Hassanamesit  (Grafton),  Magunkog  (Ashland), 
Okkokonimesit  (Marlborough),  Wamesit  (Lowell),  and  other  praying  towns, 
sought  safety  at  Natick  until  there  were  too  many  to  be  accommodated  here. 
Then  for  a time  Natick  itself  had  to  be  abandoned,  the  Indians  being  sent  to 
live  on  Deer  Island,  Boston  Harbor. 

After  the  war,  on  10  November  1676,  the  Massachusetts  praying  Indians 
were  split  up  into  four  companies  as  follows:  (1)  at  Medfield,  25  with  James 
Rumney  Marsh  in  charge;  (2)  50  at  Natick  (Andrew  Dewing’s);  (3)  62  at 
Newton  (near  Charles  River) ; and  (4)  25  more  at  Newton  (on  Nonantum 
Hill).  Thus  is  accounted  for  the  42  males  and  120  women  and  children,  a total 
of  162  Indians,  who  survived  the  war  from  this  section  of  the  country. 

For  40  years  Mr.  Eliot  preached  to  these  people  every  other  Sunday.  At  first 
he  had  the  help  of  his  son,  John,  who  was  settled  as  the  minister  at  Newton 
nearby,  but  when  the  son  died  in  1668  the  whole  burden  again  fell  on  the 
“Apostle’s”  shoulders.  By  1681  Daniel  Gookin  (son  of  Major-General  Daniel 
Gookin,  the  Superintendent  of  Indian  Affairs)  had  learned  to  speak  the  Algon- 
quin language  and  began  to  preach  here  in  Natick,  as  well  as  to  carry  on  the 
duties  of  his  own  church  at  Sherborn,  several  miles  away,  where  he  was  the  set- 
tled minister.  His  successor  at  Natick,  Daniel  Baker,  also  preached  at  Sherborn. 
After  his  death  in  1720  the  Reverend  Oliver  Peabody  became  the  missionary 
at  Natick  in  1721,  was  ordained  there  in  1729,  and  preached  to  the  Indians 
until  his  death  in  1752.  At  the  time  of  his  ordination  there  were  30  Indian  fam- 
ilies in  Natick  and  only  eight  English  households  in  other  parts  of  the  town.  Of 
the  Indians,  16  adults  were  members  and  12  minors  had  been  baptized. 

The  last  minister  to  the  mixed  congregation  was  the  Reverend  Stephen 
Badger.  In  a letter  dated  February,  1797,  he  wrote  that  there  were  then  only 
two  living  Indian  members,  but  that  there  were  about  20  other  Indians  who 
were  members  of  the  congregation.  He  declared  that  the  causes  of  the  decrease 
and  degradation  of  the  Indians  are  drunkenness,  wandering,  laziness,  thrift- 
lessness and  intermarriage  with  negroes  and  whites  of  low  intelligence  and  bad 
character.  Originally,  however,  they  were  a proud,  self-respecting  people  who 
considered  themselves  on  a standing  of  equality  with  the  English,  held  up  their 
heads  and  retained  their  native  dignity.  Being  a race  of  warriors  and  hunters, 
to  them  labor  in  a field  was  proper  work  only  for  squaws.  But  when  there  were 
no  longer  enemies  to  fight,  when  civilization  closed  round  about  them  so  that 
they  could  no  longer  live  by  hunting  and  fishing,  they  became  shiftless  and  lazy. 
Ownership  of  land  meant  little  or  nothing  to  them  and,  indeed,  wilderness 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1 649  1 8 1 


land  was  of  small  value  in  its  undeveloped  condition.  So  they  sold  their  lands 
to  the  English  who  with  great  effort  and  labor  turned  those  wild  acres  into 
productive  farm  lands.  Hemmed  in  more  and  more  by  spreading  farms,  the  In- 
dians took  to  a wandering  life,  neglected  or  abandoned  their  small  plots  of  land, 
or  bartered  them  for  rum  and  firearms.  Thus  they  became  a dependent  race 
and  lost  their  self-respect.  Meanwhile,  rum,  tuberculosis  and  poverty  completed 
their  destruction.  This  is  the  sad  story  of  the  Indians  of  New  England,  a tragic 
end  for  a race  which  had  once  possessed  many  innate  noble  qualities. 

All  the  meeting  houses  of  this  Indian  church  were  at  South  Natick.  The  pres- 
ent Eliot  church,  built  in  1828,  stands  on  the  spot  where  Eliot  once  preached, 
but  the  Indian  church  at  Natick  became  extinct  a century  and  a half  ago.  In 
1849  there  was  only  one  Indian  left  at  Natick,  a girl  16  years  of  age. 

Native  'preachers: 

1669—1675  John  Speen  1709— 1719  John  Neesnummin 

1669—1675  Anthony  1714— 1727  John  Thomas 

1690—1700  Daniel  Tokkohwompait 


Missionaries: 

1646—1686  John  Eliot  1712— 1720  Daniel  Baker 

1664-1668  John  Eliot,  Jr.  1721-1752  Oliver  Peabody9 

1681  — 1714  Daniel  Gookin,  Jr.  1 75 3 — 1 799  Stephen  Badger 

Meeting  houses:  (1)  1651;  (2)  1699;  (3)  1721;  (4)  1757;  (5)  1828,  the 
present  Eliot  Church  (Unitarian)  on  the  same  spot. 


67.  New  Bedford.  A cushnet  Praying  Town. 

The  present  township  of  Acushnet  was  taken  from  Fairhaven  in  1 860,  which 
in  turn  was  taken  from  New  Bedford  in  1812,  New  Bedford  itself  having  orig- 
inally been  part  of  Dartmouth,  1787.  Mr.  Cotton  preached  here  at  stated  in- 
tervals each  year.  Mr.  Hunt  learned  the  Algonquin  tongue  and  began  preach- 
ing to  the  natives  in  1708.  He  was  the  settled  minister  at  New  Bedford,  1708- 
1730. 

Native  preachers: 

1693—1713  John  Briant  ca.  1713  William  Briant 

Missionaries: 

1669—1697  John  Cotton,  Jr.  1708—1730  Samuel  Hunt 

1689—1727  Samuel  Danforth 


68.  New  London,  Conn.  Indian  Mission  at  New  London. 

Several  missionaries  preached  to  the  Mohegan  Indians  at  this  place,  the  first 
being  William  Tompson  (Harvard  College,  1653)  who  preached  in  the  Indian 
language,  1657—1663,  for  the  New  England  Company  of  1649.  Later  Ex- 
perience Mayhew  of  Martha’s  Vineyard  conducted  two  missions  here  in  1713 
and  1714,  and  James  Davenport  admitted  Indians  to  his  church  in  1744.  The 

9 Our  ’Publications , XVI.  483—484. 


1 82  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

Montville  Church  (q.v.)  was  situated  on  the  border  of  this  town  and  Norwich. 
Missionaries: 

1657-1663  William  Tompson  1725-1758  Eliphalet  Adams 

1713— 1714  Experience  Mayhew 

69.  Newton.  Nonantum  Fraying  Town,  1646. 

Here  John  Eliot,  the  Apostle  to  the  Indians,  began  his  first  successful  pray- 
ing town  in  1646  which,  in  1651,  removed  as  a body  to  Natick  where  in  1660 
the  first  Indian  church  in  the  Massachusetts  Bay  Colony  was  gathered.  (See 
Natick.) 

Missionary : 

1646-1651  John  Eliot 

70.  Norridgewock,  Maine.  A hanaki  Indian  Mission,  1646. 

Father  Gabriel  Druillettes,  formerly  of  Castine,  founded  a mission  at  Nor- 
ridgewock among  the  Abanaki  Indians  in  1646.  He  remained  here  for  a few 
months,  during  which  he  built  a chapel,  then  removed  to  Castine  again  for  a 
short  time  before  going  to  Canada.  He  was  followed  by  Father  Joseph  Aubry, 
and  later  still  by  Father  Sebastian  Rasle,  whose  long,  self-sacrificing  service 
among  the  Indians  of  this  place  lasted  from  1691  to  1724. 

In  1792  the  Indians  in  the  District  of  Maine  were  all  Roman  Catholics  and 
were  reduced  to  about  60  families  on  the  Penobscot  River  and  about  30  families 
at  Passamaquoddy.  At  that  time  there  was  a mission  church  at  each  of  these 
places. 

In  1837  there  remained  at  Old  Town  in  Orono  on  the  Penobscot  River  95 
families,  in  all  362  souls,  all  Roman  Catholics.  “To  such  a remnant  is  this  tribe 
reduced — a tribe  anciently  and  uniformly  called  the  Tarrantine,  who  could  bring 
into  the  field  more  than  two  thousand  warriors,  and  who  claimed  the  lands  on 
both  sides  of  the  Penobscot  river  from  its  sources  to  its  mouth.” 

In  1841  at  Pleasant  Point  in  Perry,  Maine,  the  remains  of  Passamaquoddy 
tribe  numbered  1 20  souls,  all  Roman  Catholic. 

71.  Norwich,  Conn.  Mohegan  Mission  at  Norwich. 

The  first  missionary  to  preach  to  the  Mohegans  with  much  success  was  the 
Reverend  James  Fitch  of  Norwich,  1669—1702.  He  was  preaching  to  them 
with  considerable  regularity  in  their  own  language  as  early  as  1670  and  at  that 
time  had  30  grown  persons  and  about  ten  young  persons  and  children  under 
his  care.  He  gave  the  Indians  about  300  acres  of  his  own  land  and  the  town  of 
Norwich  gave  more  land  to  them.  His  successors  were:  Experience  Mayhew, 
Eliphalet  Adams,  David  Jewett  and  Jonathan  Barber.  About  1744  Mr.  James 
Davenport  admitted  a few  Indians  to  full  communion  in  his  church  at  Norwich. 

The  Reverend  Samson  Occum,  who  came  from  this  vicinity,  was  the  first  In- 
dian pupil  educated  by  the  Reverend  Eleazer  Wheelock  at  his  Indian  school  in 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1649  183 


Lebanon  (now  Columbia).  Occum  preached  here  to  the  natives  for  short  pe- 
riods and  on  Long  Island,  New  York.  In  1755  and  1756  he  accompanied  Dr. 
Wheelock  to  England  and  preached  there  in  many  places  to  secure  money  to 
carry  on  the  Indian  school.  In  1786  a few  Mohegans  went  with  Mr.  Occum  to 
Oneida,  New  York.  This  was  the  beginning  of  a general  exodus  of  the  Indians 
of  this  part  of  southern  New  England  to  New  York  state.  Mr.  Occum  preached 
to  his  people  at  Brotherton,  near  Oneida,  where  he  died  in  July,  1792.  The 
Brotherton  Indians,  about  250  in  number  in  1791,  were  largely  Mohegans,  but 
also  some  came  from  Farmington,  Stonington  and  Nehantick  in  Connecticut, 
and  others  from  Long  Island  and  from  Charlestown,  Rhode  Island.  John  Coop- 
er preached  to  the  Indians  at  Montville  in  1790. 


Teachers: 

ca.  1733  Capt.  John  Mason 
*73 7 — 1 73^  Jonathan  Barber 
Native  f reackers: 

1674  Weebox 
1674  Tukamon 

Missionaries: 

1660-1702  James  Fitch 
1713— 1714  Experience  Mayhew 
1 725—1  746  Eliphalet  Adams 


1752-1757  Robert  Cleland 
ca.  1770  Willard  Hubbard 

1784  Samson  Occum 
1 79°  John  Cooper 

1743—1744  James  Davenport 
1 739— 1 775  David  Jewett 
1768-1773  Jonathan  Barber 


72.  Oak  Bluffs.  Sanchacantacket  Indian  Churchy  1670. 

The  first  Indian  church  formed  on  the  island  of  Martha’s  Vineyard  was  gath- 
ered at  Sanchacantacket  (Sanchekantacket  or  Sengekontaket)  in  1670,  on  which 
occasion  Hiacoomes  and  John  Tackanash  were  ordained  as  ministers  of  the  na- 
tive churches  by  Eliot,  Cotton  and  Mayhew,  and  the  church  here  was  organized 
at  the  same  time.  It  was  situated  near  Sanchacantacket  Pond,  in  what  was  then 
Edgartown,  but  is  now  in  the  township  of  Oak  Bluffs.  John  Tackanash  was 
thereupon  settled  here  as  the  first  minister  where  he  remained  until  his  death, 
22  January  1683/4.  He  was  followed  by  Japheth  Hannit,  who  died  on  29 
July  1712.  Tackanash  and  Hannit  also  preached  in  all  the  other  praying  towns 
on  Martha’s  Vineyard.  Thomas  Sockakonnit  was  deacon  and  preacher.  The 
ministers  of  Edgartown  and  the  missionaries  of  Martha’s  Vineyard  acted  as 
overseers  and  preachers  of  this  church. 


Indian  ministers: 

1670—1684  John  Tackanash 
1670—1678  John  Nohnoso 
Died  1688  Paul  Mashquattuhkooit 
Missionaries: 

1670—1681  Thomas  Mayhew,  Sr. 
1664—1667  John  Cotton,  Jr. 
1673—1689  John  Mayhew 


1683—1712  Japheth  Hannit 
1698—1703  Thomas  Sockakonnit 
1698—1723  Job  Peosin  (Russel) 

1694—1758  Experience  Mayhew 
1713-1746  Samuel  Wiswall 
1767—1806  Zachariah  Mayhew 


1 84  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

73.  Orleans.  Nauset  Praying  Town. 

The  Reverend  Samuel  Treat  preached  to  the  Nauset  Indians  in  their  own 
language  for  45  pears  until  his  death  on  18  March  1716/7.  These  Indians  in 
1685  occupied  the  territory  extending  from  Truro  to  Orleans  and  at  that  time 
numbered  246  persons  (including  the  Potanumaquuts) . Mr.  Treat  made  him- 
self so  perfectly  acquainted  with  their  language  that  he  was  able  to  speak  it  and 
write  it  with  great  fluency.  Once  a month  he  preached  in  the  several  villages. 
At  other  times  the  four  Indian  preachers  read  to  their  congregations  the  sermons 
he  had  written  for  them.  Mr.  Treat  visited  the  natives  in  their  wigwams,  but 
before  his  death,  however,  a fatal  disease  swept  away  a great  number  of  them. 
He  translated  the  Confession  of  Faith  into  the  Nauset  dialect  and  it  was  printed. 

Mr.  Bourne  reported  44  praying  Indians  here  in  1674,  24  adults  and  20 
young  men  and  maids.  Of  the  whole  number,  seven  could  read  and  but  two 
could  write.  There  were  27  houses  of  Indians  (about  120  souls)  here  in  1698. 
By  1764  there  were  only  four  Indians  in  Eastham,  and  in  1802  only  one  re- 
mained. 


Native  'preachers: 
ca.  1685  Great  Tom 
Missionaries: 

1670—1681  Richard  Bourne 
1673—1717  Samuel  Treat 
1708—1726  Daniel  Greenleaf 
1729—1742  Joseph  Bourne 


ca.  1698  Daniel  Munshee 

1758—1807  Gideon  Hawley 
and  perhaps 

1 739— 1 772  Joseph  Crocker 


74.  Orleans.  Potanumaquut  Indian  Church. 

This  tribe  was  for  many  years  the  largest  at  the  eastern  end  of  the  Cape.  The 
southern  part  of  Orleans  was  called  Potanumaquut  and  the  Potanumaquut  In- 
dians lived  partly  in  this  township  and  partly  in  Harwich,  but  towards  the  end 
mostly  in  Orleans.  These  natives  were  under  the  care  of  Mr.  Treat  who  num- 
bered them,  along  with  the  Nausets  and  Pamets,  as  500  souls  in  1700.  At  that 
time  Thomas  Coshaumag  was  their  teacher  and  preacher.  By  1 764  there  were 
91  Indians  at  Potanumaquut,  which  was  then  the  center  of  missionary  effort  and 
preaching  at  this  end  of  the  Cape  and  so  continued  for  several  years  after  this 
period.  But  by  the  year  1800  only  three  Indians  remained  at  Potanumaquut 
and  one  in  Truro. 

We  do  not  know  when  this  praying  town  was  organized  into  a church  but 
Joseph  Briant  was  ordained  minister  here  in  1758. 

Native  preachers: 

ca.  1698  Thomas  Coshaumag  1758—1760  Joseph  Briant 

1720—1775  Solomon  Briant  1762—1770  John  Ralph  and  perhaps 

1719—1760  Joshua  Ralph  Elisha  Ralph 

Missionaries: 

1670—1681  Richard  Bourne 


1673-1717  Samuel  Treat 


j85 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1 649 

1708-1726  Daniel  Greenlcaf  1739-1772  Joseph  Crocker 

1729—1742  Joseph  Bourne  1758—1807  Gideon  Hawley 

75.  Oxford.  Kekamoochuck  Praying  Town. 

During  the  years  the  French  Huguenot  Church  flourished  in  Oxford  two 

of  its  ministers  learned  the  Indian  tongue  and  preached  to  the  natives  at  the 
nearby  village  of  Kekamoochuck  Indians.  Daniel  Bondet  and  Jacques  Laborie 
were  employed  for  this  work  by  the  New  England  Company  of  1649.  ( Colonial 
Society  of  Massachusetts , 26.  3 3 3 — 3 35.)  Captain  Gabriel  Bernon,  one  of  the 
commissioners  of  the  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel  among  the  Indians  of 
Newr  England,  etc.,  lived  here  but  removed  to  Rhode  Island  soon  after  1 704. 
Missionaries : 

1686—1694  Daniel  Bondet  1699—1704  Jacques  Laborie 

76.  Pembroke.  Matakeeset  Praying  Town. 

The  small  village  of  Matakeeset  was  the  seat  of  missionary  activity  on  the 
part  of  John  Cotton,  Jr.,  and  of  his  son,  Josiah  Cotton,  for  nearly  a century.  The 
latter  compiled  a dictionary  of  the  Indian  language.  In  1685  there  were  40  na- 
tives in  this  place,  and  in  1792  two  or  three  families  of  Indians  remained. 
Missionaries: 

1669—169 7 John  Cotton,  Jr.  1707— 1744  Josiah  Cotton 

77*  Plymouth.  Manomet  Ponds  Praying  Town. 

Manomet  was  the  third  parish  or  precinct  of  Plymouth  and  was  also  called 
Kitteaumut  or  Catawmet.  There  were  40  Indians  here  in  1674,  and  in  1698 
ten  families  or  50  persons.  The  Cottons  preached  here  from  1674  to  1744  and 
probably  longer. 

Indian  'preachers: 

ca.  1698  William  Nummuck  1713—1718  Joseph  Wanno 

1698—1709  Jacob  Hedge  1757—1767  Isaac  Jeffrey 

Missionaries: 

1669—1697  John  Cotton,  Jr.  1707—1744  Josiah  Cotton 

78.  Plymouth.  Saltwater  Pond  Praying  Town. 

This  pond  was  located  on  the  coast  below  Manomet  Ponds  and,  in  1685, 
there  were  90  Indians  here  with  Will  Skipeag  as  their  preacher.  The  Cottons, 
father  and  son,  labored  here  also. 

Indian  preacher: 
ca.  1685  Will  Skipeag 
Missionaries: 

1669—1697  John  Cotton,  Jr. 


1707-1744  Josiah  Cotton 


1 86  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

79.  Pom  fret,  Conn.  Quantisset  Praying  Town. 

When  John  Eliot  and  Daniel  Gookin  visited  this  town  in  1674  the  Indians 
consisted  of  20  families,  or  100  souls.  The  town  was  located  in  the  southeastern 
part  of  Old  Woodstock,  about  four  miles  south  of  the  Massachusetts  Colony 
line.  Daniel,  their  minister,  was  “a  sober  and  pious  young  man  from  Natick.” 
Indian  'preachers: 

1669  Monatunkquanet  ca.  1674  Daniel 

ca.  1671  Wohwohquoshadt 
Missionary : 

1670-1680  John  Eliot 

80.  Rochester.  Cooxisset  Praying  Town. 

The  exact  location  of  the  Cooxisset  praying  town  is  unknown  to  the  present 
writer,  but  from  the  position  in  which  it  is  listed  in  1685  we  suppose  it  may 
have  been  in  Rochester  or  one  of  the  neighboring  towns.  Rochester  (Sippican 
and  Mattapoiset)  covers  a large  territory  between  Wareham  and  New  Bedford, 
part  of  old  Rochester  now  being  in  the  newer  towns  of  Marion  and  Mattapoiset. 
Governor  Hinckley  reported  85  natives  here  in  1685  with  Indian  John  as 
their  minister. 

Native  preacher: 
ca.  1685  Indian  John 
Missionaries : 

1685-1697  John  Cotton,  Jr.  1748-1775  Thomas  West 

81.  Sandwich.  Skauton  Praying  Town. 

This  large  township  originally  contained  the  present  townships  of  Mashpee 
and  Bourne,  two  Indian  churches  (Mashpee  and  Herring  Ponds)  and  numer- 
ous praying  villages.  The  Reverend  William  Leveridge  (or  Leverich)  was  a 
pioneer  missionary  to  the  Indians  in  this  town  as  early  as  1651  and  perhaps 
earlier. 

Of  the  many  Indian  praying  towns  it  appears  that  Skauton,  in  the  northeast- 
ern part  of  the  present  town  of  Sandwich,  was  the  only  one  left  in  the  old  town- 
ship. In  1685  it  contained  51  praying  Indians.  Eventually  it  was  probably  ab- 
sorbed by  the  Mashpee  church,  although  Hawley  reported  five  wigwams  (about 
30  Indians)  here  in  1764,  and  nine  wigwams  in  1767. 

Native  preacher: 
ca.  1685  Simon  Wickett 
Missionaries: 

1685—1697  John  Cotton,  Jr. 

1691—1722  Rowland  Cotton 


1722—1746  Benjamin  Fessenden 
1758-1807  Gideon  Hawley 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1649  187 

82.  Sharon,  Conn.  W equodnoc  Moravian  Indian  Mission y 1741. 

In  1741  the  Reverend  David  Bruce  began  a mission  here  which  was  named 
Gnadensee  on  Indian  Pond  near  the  New  York  state  boundary  line.  In  a few 
years  there  were  20  or  30  converts.  Bruce  died  in  July,  1749.  The  last  mis- 
sionary was  the  Reverend  Joseph  Powell,  after  whose  death  here  in  1774  the 
mission  was  discontinued. 

83.  Stockbridge.  Housatonic  Indian  Churchy  1734.  Congregational. 
Reverend  John  Sergeant  (Yale  College,  1729),  ordained  31  August  1735. 

The  Reverend  Messrs.  Samuel  Hopkins,  Stephen  Williams  and  Jonathan  Ed- 
wards with  Colonels  John  Stoddard  and  Israel  Williams,  realizing  the  need  of 
the  Housatonic  Indians  of  western  Massachusetts  for  a village  of  their  own 
with  a meeting  house  and  school,  a minister  and  a teacher,  appealed  to  the  leg- 
islature of  Massachusetts  for  a grant  of  land  for  this  purpose.  The  legislature 
approved,  granted  23,000  acres  of  land,  comprising  the  present  towns  of  Stock- 
bridge  and  West  Stockbridge,  and  guaranteed  the  whole  tract  to  these  Indians 
forever,  except  385  acres  apiece  for  the  support  of  a minister,  a schoolmaster 
and  four  white  families  to  act  as  examples  for  the  Indians.  The  plan  was  to 
Anglicize  the  Indians  as  a presumed  help  in  the  process  of  Christianizing  them. 
The  Reverend  John  Sergeant  was  engaged  as  their  minister  and  the  Reverend 
Timothy  Woodbridge  as  their  schoolmaster.  The  work  was  begun  with  a school 
of  25  Indian  children  in  1734.  By  1737  a school  house  had  been  built  and  a 
meeting  house  was  dedicated  on  Thanksgiving  Day,  1739. 

In  the  meantime  Mr.  Sergeant  had  mastered  the  Housatonic  dialect  and 
could  preach  to  the  Indians  without  an  interpreter.  There  were  then  90  Indians 
at  the  mission,  of  whom  52  were  baptized.  The  Society  for  Propagation  of  the 
Gospel  among  the  Indians  of  New  England  and  Parts  Adjacent  furnished  the 
agricultural  tools  for  the  natives  and  the  Reverend  Isaac  Hollis  of  London  prom- 
ised £300  annually  to  support  12  Indian  boys  in  a boarding  school.  They  were 
soon  selected,  lived  with  Mr.  Sergeant  and  were  taught  by  him.  The  loyalty  of 
the  Housatonic  Indians  was  by  this  means  completely  established  through  the 
work  of  Mr.  Sergeant. 

The  heads  of  the  four  white  families  were  Ephraim  Williams  of  Newton 
(father  of  Colonel  Ephraim  Williams,  founder  of  Williams  College),  Josiah 
Jones  of  Weston,  brother-in-law  of  Mr.  Williams,  Joseph  Woodbridge,  brother 
of  the  schoolmaster,  and  Samuel  Brown.  Unfortunately  the  perpetual  guaran- 
tee of  the  ownership  of  the  land  was  soon  lost  sight  of  and  other  white  families 
began  to  settle  in  the  town.  By  1749  there  were  53  Indian  families  composed 
of  218  persons.  Of  these  129  had  been  baptized  and  42  were  church  members. 
But  a year  later  there  were  68  Indian  families  who  owned  only  4,170  acres  of 
land  while  the  remaining  16,500  acres  were  gradually  sold  to  new  white  settlers. 

Notwithstanding  this  unfortunate  condition  Mr.  Sergeant  worked  unselfish- 
ly, preaching  two  sermons  to  the  Indians  and  two  sermons  to  the  whites  each 


1 88  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

Sunday,  besides  teaching  in  the  Indian  boarding  school  and  making  many  mis- 
sionary journeys  among  the  western  Indians.  The  pace  was  too  great  for  him 
and  he  died  at  Stockbridge  27  July  1749. 

The  board  of  Trustees  of  the  Indian  boarding  school  at  that  time  consisted 
of  Colonel  John  Stoddard,  Colonel  Israel  Williams,  Reverend  Stephen  Wil- 
liams and  Reverend  Jonathan  Edwards.  During  the  interim  Reverend  Gideon 
Hawley  and  Reverend  Cotton  Mather  Smith  taught  in  the  boarding  school. 
Meanwhile,  the  Reverend  Elisha  Williams,  former  President  of  Yale  College, 
with  the  help  of  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  among  the  In- 
dians, founded  an  Indian  girls  school  in  the  village. 

The  dismissal  of  the  Reverend  Jonathan  Edwards  from  the  church  in  North- 
ampton proved  to  be  a blessing  for  Stockbridge  for  he  was  at  once  settled  as  suc- 
cessor to  Mr.  Sergeant  and,  like  him,  accepted  the  task  of  teaching  the  twelve 
Indian  boys  in  his  own  home. 

Due  to  the  loyalty  of  the  Stockbridge  Indians  the  plantation  was  not  dis- 
turbed by  the  French  and  Indian  Wars,  but  when,  in  1754,  two  renegade  In- 
dians from  Connecticut  killed  several  white  inhabitants,  most  of  the  Indians 
and  whites  fled  to  Great  Barrington  and  the  Connecticut  towns  until  only  the 
Edwards  family  and  42  Indians  remained.  It  was  some  time  before  the  panic- 
stricken  people  returned,  but  Mr.  Edwards  remained  with  them  until  he  was 
called  to  the  Presidency  of  Princeton  College  in  1758  where  he  died  a month 
after  being  installed. 

The  Indians  of  Stockbridge  gradually  increased  until  they  numbered  about 
500.  The  Reverend  Stephen  West,  D.D.,  succeeded  Mr.  Edwards,  preaching 
to  the  Indians  until  1775  when  the  Reverend  John  Sergeant,  Jr.,  became  their 
minister.  Shortly  before  the  Revolutionary  War  a township  six  miles  square  in 
New  York  state  was  given  to  the  Stockbridge  Indians  by  the  Oneidas.  This 
grant  was  accepted  and,  under  the  guidance  of  Mr.  Sergeant,  the  entire  tribe 
removed  to  New  Stockbridge,  New  York,  1783—1785.  During  the  period  of 
the  Stockbridge  mission,  however,  IOO  Indians  had  professed  Christianity.  In 
1822  the  New  Stockbridge  Indians  again  migrated  to  a new  grant  at  Green  Bay, 
Wisconsin.  (For  an  excellent  and  full  account  of  the  Stockbridge  experiment 
see  Chard  Powers  Smith:  The  Housatonic , New  York,  1946,  pp.  1 1 1—43.) 

Ministers  of  the  Indian  Church: 


1 7 5 9— 1 7 7 5 Stephen  West,  D.D. 
1 775— 1785  John  Sergeant,  Jr. 


1734—1749  John  Sergeant 
1751—1758  Jonathan  Edwards 
School  teacher: 

1734—1740  Timothy  Woodbridge 
Teachers  of  the  Indian  boys  boarding  school: 

1740-1749  John  Sergeant  1753—1754  Cotton  Mather  Smith 

1751— 1753  Gideon  Hawley  1754—1758  Jonathan  Edwards 

Meeting  house:  1739. 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1 649  1 89 

84.  Stonington,  Conn.  IV equetequoch  Indian  Mission. 

It  is  said  that  the  Reverend  James  Noyes  preached  to  the  natives  at  this  place. 
He  was  the  son-in-law  of  Thomas  Stanton,  the  official  interpreter.  Experience 
Mayhew  preached  here  in  1713  and  1714  to  50  Indians. 

Missionaries: 

1732—1781  Joseph  Fish  ca.  1770  Edward  Nedson 

1 73 3— 1 781  Nathaniel  Eells 

85.  S u tto  N . M anchaug  Praying  T own . 

This  was  a new  praying  town  in  1674  when  Eliot  and  Gookin  visited  this 
settlement.  There  were  then  12  families  of  praying  Indians,  or  60  souls.  Waa- 
besktamin  was  assigned  as  their  preacher,  whom  they  gladly  accepted. 

1 nd ian  preacher : 

ca.  1674  Waabesktamin 

Missionary : 

1674-1676  John  Eliot 

86.  Thompson,  Conn.  Manexit  Praying  Town. 

Manexit  was  situated  on  the  Quinabaug  River.  The  Indians  there  in  1674 
numbered  about  20  families,  or  about  100  souls.  Mr.  Eliot  preached  to  them 
and,  after  the  sermon  was  ended,  he  presented  unto  them  John  Moqua,  a pious 
and  sober  person,  for  their  minister,  whom  they  thankfully  accepted. 

Native  minister: 

1674  John  Moqua 
Missionary : 

1674  John  Eliot 

87.  Truro.  Meshawn  Praying  Town. 

The  Meshawn  (Meeshawn)  or  Pamet  Indians  lived  in  Provincetown  but 
principally  in  Truro.  They  with  the  Punonakanit  (or  Ponanummakut)  Indians 
were  72  in  number  in  1674,  of  whom  51  were  adults  and  21  young  men  and 
maids.  Of  these  25  could  read  and  16  could  write  in  their  own  language. 
There  were  20  houses  of  Indians  here  in  1698  (perhaps  80  Indians).  Governor 
Hinckley  said  in  1685  that  their  minister,  Potanummatack,  a prudent,  sober 
man,  had  recently  died,  much  lamented.  In  1792  only  one  Indian  remained. 
Native  ministers: 

1674—1685  Potanummatack  1685—1698  Daniel  Munshe 

Missionaries: 

1670—1681  Richard  Bourne  1673—1717  Samuel  Treat 

88.  Uxbridge.  IV aeuntug  Praying  Town. 

Waeuntug  (Waeuntog  or  Wacantuck)  was  situated  in  the  western  part  of 


i go  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

Mendon,  now  Uxbridge,  near  the  Nipmuc  (or  Blackstone)  River,  and  con- 
tained about  50  Indians.  In  1674  the  ministers  were  James  Printer,  brother  of 
Joseph  of  Hassanamesit,  and  Sasomet,  both  of  whom  lived  in  Grafton. 

Native  'preachers: 

1669— 1674  James  Printer  ca.  1674  Sasomet 

Missionary : 

1670- 1680  John  Eliot 

8 9 . W areh am . W eweantic  Praying  T own. 

This  small  Indian  village  is  grouped  with  some  of  the  Falmouth  and  Bourne 
Indians,  a total  of  36  Indians.  Perhaps  a third  of  them  belonged  here.  Charles 
of  Mannamit  was  probably  their  preacher  in  1674  and  Richard  Bourne  their 
missionary.  Cowesit  is  a neck  of  land  in  this  town. 

Missionaries: 

1670—1681  Richard  Bourne  1 7 3 9 — 1 7 ^ 7 Elisha  Tupper 

1681—1697  J°hn  Cotton,  Jr. 

90.  Webster.  Chaubunagungamaug  Praying  Town. 

This  village  contained  nine  families  or  45  souls  in  1674  and  was  called  after 
the  lake  of  the  same  name,  being  situated  at  the  south  end  of  it.  The  people 
were  better  instructed  in  the  gospel  than  in  any  of  the  other  new  praying  towns 
at  that  time.  Their  minister  was  Joseph  who  had  been  here  for  two  years  work- 
ing among  them  though  he  lived  at  Grafton.  He  spoke  English  well  and  had  a 
thorough  knowledge  of  the  scriptures.  Mr.  Eliot  preached  here  in  1674,  urging 
the  people  to  stand  fast  in  their  faith.  Joseph,  son  of  Petavit,  alias  Robin,  was  a 
valuable  scout  for  the  English  during  King  Philip’s  War,  but  was,  nevertheless, 
sold  as  a slave  by  the  English.  There  was  stated  preaching  here  in  1684.  Charles 
Gleason  of  Dudley  was  missionary  here  1770—1775  and  doubtless  followed 
Perley  Howe  in  this  work,  the  latter  being  a well-known  Indian  missionary. 
Native  preacher: 

1672—1676  Joseph 
Missionaries: 

1672—1686  John  Eliot  1744—1790  Charles  Gleason 

1735— 1 743  Perley  Howe 

91.  Wellfleet.  Punonakanit  (or  P onanummakut)  Praying  Town. 

The  village  of  Punonakanit  (Billingsgate)  contained  22  families  of  praying 

Indians  in  1698,  eleven  Indians  in  1760,  but  all  had  died  before  1802. 

Native  preachers: 

1670—1685  Potanummatack  1685—1698  Daniel  Munshe 

Missionaries: 

1670-1681  Richard  Bourne 


1673—171 7 Samuel  Treat 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1649  19 1 

92.  Westport.  Acoaxet  Praying  Town. 

The  Acoaxet  or  Cokesit  Indians  of  Westport  were  associated  with  the  Sakonnet 
Indians  of  Little  Compton.  John  Cotton,  Jr.,  preached  to  them  at  stated  inter- 
vals at  Acushnet.  Westport  was  formerly  a part  of  Dartmouth,  being  set  off  as  a 
town  2 July  1787.  There  were  120  adult  Indians  here  in  1685  at  which  time 
Isaac  was  their  preacher.  About  160  Dartmouth  Indians  (Acushnets,  Cokesits 
and  Sakonnets)  surrendered  peacefully  in  King  Philip’s  War,  but  in  spite  of 
promises  were  shipped  to  Deer  Island,  Boston  Harbor,  where  many  of  them 
were  sold  as  slaves  in  the  West  Indies  or  perished.  A few  returned. 

Native  ministers: 

ca.  1685  Isaac  ca.  1698  Daniel  Hinckley 

M issionaries: 

1669-1697  John  Cotton,  Jr.  1707-1744  Josiah  Cotton 

1689-1727  Samuel  Danforth 

93.  West  Tisbury.  Christiantown  Indian  Churchy  1660. 

The  ancient  settlement  of  praying  Indians  at  West  Tisbury  (Ohkonkemme) 
was  set  apart  in  1660  by  Josias,  the  Sachem  of  Takemmy,  and  was  later  called 
Christiantown  (Manitouwattootan)  to  commemorate  the  services  of  Governor 
Thomas  Mayhew  and  his  descendants  who  labored  among  the  Indians  as  mis- 
sionaries for  more  than  two  and  a half  centuries.  The  church  was  organized  in 
1680.  Before  the  death  of  the  Reverend  John  Mayhew,  minister  of  the  First 
Church  in  West  Tisbury,  there  were  about  100  members  of  this  Indian  church. 
In  1732  two  silver  flagons  were  presented  to  it  by  the  Old  South  Church  in 
Boston.  Preaching  was  supported  by  the  Company  for  the  Propagation  of  the 
Gospel  among  the  Indians  of  New  England  (1649)  for  more  than  a century, 
until  1786,  when  it  ceased  to  function  in  New  England.  After  that  the  Society 
for  Propagating  the  Gospel  among  the  Indians,  which  had  been  organized  at 
Boston  in  1787,  continued  to  support  this  church  until  it  became  extinct. 

Following  John  Mayhew’s  death  the  Reverend  Messrs.  Josiah  Torrey  and 
Nathaniel  Hancock  of  West  Tisbury  supervised  this  congregation,  frequently 
preaching  here  in  the  Algonquin  tongue  and  administering  the  sacraments  to 
the  Indian  members.  By  the  year  1858,  however,  there  had  been  no  stated  re- 
ligious worship  at  Christiantown  for  some  years  and  it  soon  became  extinct,  ow- 
ing to  an  epidemic  of  smallpox  which  proved  fatal  to  those  Indians  who  had 
remained  here.  The  present  rude  meeting  house  was  erected  in  1829  and  now 
stands  alone  in  the  woods  far  removed  from  any  habitation. 

As  far  as  known,  Wunnanauhkomun  was  the  first  Indian  minister.  He  died 
in  1676.  John  Amanhut,  son  of  Sachem  Wannamanhut,  died  here  in  March, 
1672.  Joel  Sims,  son  of  Pockqsimme,  also  preached  here,  but  died  young  in 
1680.  James  Sepinnu  was  brother  of  John  Tackanash,  the  colleague  of  Hia- 
coomes.  John  Shohkow  (alias  Assaquamhut,  son  of  Nashohkow),  ruling  elder 
and  preacher,  died  in  1690.  Micah  Shohkow,  his  brother,  a godly  minister, 


192  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 


died  the  same  year,  and  Stephen  Shohkow,  a younger  brother,  was  drowned  on 
6 August  1713.  Isaac  Ompany,  a ruling  elder  and  preacher,  the  son  of  Noqui- 
tompany,  died  6 March  1716/7.  Hosea  Manhut,  the  son  of  John  Amanhut, 
the  second  minister,  was  ordained  pastor  of  “the  Indian  Church  at  the  West 
End  of  this  Island,  1724/5.” 

The  population  of  Christiantown  was  as  follows:  1698,  82;  1762,  54;  1790, 
40 ; 1828,  49;  1858,  53,  the  latter  figure  consisting  of  23  males  and  30  females. 
Indian  'preachers: 


1660—1676  Wunnanauhkomun 
1670—1672  John  Amanhut 
1676—1680  Joel  Sims 
1680—1683  James  Sepinnu 
1683—1690  John  Shohkow 


1690-1690  Micah  Shohkow 
1690—1713  Stephen  Shohkow 
1713— 1717  Isaac  Ompany 
1718-1719  Jabez  Athern 
1724—  Hosea  Manhut 


Missionaries : 

1660— 1681  Thomas  Mayhew,  Sr. 
1664—1667  John  Cotton,  Jr. 
1673—1689  John  Mayhew 
1694—1698  Experience  Mayhew 


1701— 1723  Josiah  Torrey 
1727—1752  Nathaniel  Hancock 
1767—1806  Zachariah  Mayhew 
1810—1836  Frederic  Baylies 


Meeting  houses:  ( 1)  1680;  (2)  1695;  (3)  1770, burned;  (4)  1 829,  the  pres- 
ent church. 


94.  West  Tisbury.  Takeme  Praying  Tozvn. 

How  long  this  town  of  praying  Indians  continued  is  not  known. 

Native  preacher: 

1670—1684  John  Tackanash 
Missionaries: 

1673— 1689  John  Mayhew  1701— 1723  Josiah  Torrey 

95.  Woodstock,  Conn.  W abquissit  Praying  Town. 

This  place  in  1674  was  about  four  miles  within  the  southern  boundary  line 
of  Massachusetts  on  the  Quinabaug  River  and  contained  about  30  families  or 
150  souls.  The  soil  there  was  very  rich,  bearing  not  less  than  40  bushels  of  In- 
dian corn  to  the  acre.  “The  sagamore  inclines  to  religion,”  said  Mr.  Gookin, 
“and  keeps  the  meeting  on  sabbath  days  at  his  [long]  house,  which  is  spacious, 
about  sixty  feet  in  length,  and  twenty  in  width.” 

The  minister  in  1674  was  Sampson,  an  active  and  ingenious  person,  brother 
of  Joseph  of  Chaubunagungamaug,  and  a brave  scout  and  guide  for  the  English 
in  King  Philip’s  War.  He  was  captured  and  killed  by  mistake  by  some  Chris- 
tian Indians  at  Mt.  Wachusett,  1675.  Mr.  Eliot  and  Mr.  Gookin  spent  15  and 
16  September  1674  at  Wabquissit  where  Mr.  Eliot  preached,  Sampson  read 
the  scriptures,  and  Mr.  Gookin  held  court. 

Native  minister: 

1674— 1676  Sampson 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1649  193 

Missiofiaries: 

1674-1690  John  Eliot  1690-1726  Josiah  Dwight 


96.  Yarmouth.  Matakees  Praying  Town. 

There  were  70  adult  Indians  in  this  praying  town  in  1685.  Matakees  (Matta- 
kees)  itself  was  in  the  northwest  part  of  the  town  of  Yarmouth  near  the  small 
harbor  now  called  Cummaquid.  In  1713  the  town  of  Yarmouth  set  off  a tract 
of  160  acres  of  land  between  Long  Pond  and  Bass  River  “for  the  Indian  inhabi- 
tants to  live  upon.”  This  was  Indian  Town,  located  in  the  southern  part  of 
Yarmouth.  Here  about  1715a  meeting  house  was  built  near  Swan’s  Pond  and 
there  was  an  Indian  burial  place  nearby.  In  1767  there  were  six  wigwams  here. 
But  most  of  these  Indians  died  of  smallpox  in  1778.  Late  in  that  year  the  land 
was  sold  to  pay  the  cost  of  attending  them  during  the  epidemic.  A year  later 
five  Pawkunnawkut  Indians  were  then  living  near  the  mouth  of  Bass  River.  In 
1787  and  1797  but  one  wigwam  remained.  Solomon  Briant  preached  to  the 
Indians  of  this  town  from  1720  to  1775. 

Native  'preachers: 

ca.  1685  Jeremy  Robin  1720—1775  Solomon  Briant 


M issionaries: 

1670-1681  Richard  Bourne 
1681—1697  John  Cotton,  Jr. 
1708—1726  Daniel  Greenleaf 


1729—1742  Joseph  Bourne 
1754—1758  Joseph  Green 
17S7~ JSoo  Gideon  Hawley 


97.  Columbia,  Conn.  Moor’s  Indian  Charity  School y 1754. 

This  famous  school  was  the  forerunner  of  Dartmouth  College.  The  Reverend 
Eleazer  Wheelock,  D.D.,  was  settled  as  minister  at  Columbia  (third  parish  in 
Lebanon),  4 June  1735—15  April  1770,  leaving  Columbia  to  become  the  first 
President  of  Dartmouth  College,  1770—1779.  These  schools  were  supported  by 
funds  raised  in  England  by  Dr.  Wheelock  and  Samson  Occum,  by  the  New 
England  Company  of  1649,  by  the  Society  in  Scotland  for  Propagating  Chris- 
tian Knowledge  among  the  Indians,  1709,  and  through  the  benefactions  of 
Mr.  Joshua  Moor  of  Mansfield,  Connecticut.  Later,  in  1763,  Sir  Peter  Warren’s 
gift  was  used  for  this  Indian  school.  Dr.  Wheelock  educated  Occum  at  Colum- 
bia 1741— 1744,  began  to  teach  other  Indian  boys  1754  and,  by  1764,  he  had 
30  scholars,  half  of  whom  were  natives. 

Missionary : 

1754—1770  Eleazer  Wheelock,  D.D. 


98.  Farmington,  Conn.  Indian  School  and  Mission . 

The  Reverend  Samuel  Whitman,  minister  of  this  town  from  1706  to  1751, 
labored  here  among  the  Indians  from  1737,  or  earlier,  to  1751.  John  Metta- 
wen  was  the  native  schoolmaster  here  in  1737.  The  Reverend  Timothy  Pitkin, 
who  succeeded  Mr.  Whitman,  also  preached  to  the  natives  and  acted  as  their 


1 94  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

supervisor,  1752—1785,  and  from  1770  to  1775,  Edward  Deake  also  taught 
and  preached  part  time  with  him. 

The  natives  were  very  numerous  when  the  first  settlers  arrived  in  1 640,  the 
hunting  grounds  and  fishing  places  being  particularly  adapted  and  attractive 
to  the  Indians.  In  1763  their  number  was  about  100,  many  having  previously 
removed  to  Stockbridge,  the  rest  joining  them  there  later. 

Native  teacher: 

ca.  1737  John  Mettawen 

Missionaries: 

1 73 7 — 1 752  Samuel  Whitman  1 77° — 1 775  Edward  Deake 

1752—1785  Timothy  Pitkin 

99.  Lyme,  Conn.  Niantic  (N ehantic)  Praying  Town. 

The  Nehantic  tribe  of  Indians  lived  in  this  town  near  a village  now  called 
Niantic.  The  Reverend  Eliphalet  Adams,  minister  at  New  London,  1708— 
1 75 3,  worked  among  these  Indians  1725—1746.  He  was  followed  by  David 
Latham  who  was  here  from  1770  to  1775  and  doubtless  earlier.  Many  Ne- 
hantics  went  to  New  Stockbridge,  New  York,  1783—1785. 

Missionaries: 

1725—1746  Eliphalet  Adams  1770—1775  David  Latham 

100.  Southampton,  Long  Island,  N.  Y.  Montauk  Praying  Town. 
Here,  at  the  eastern  tip  of  Long  Island,  Samson  Occum  kept  school  for  the 

Indians.  He  was  ordained  by  the  Suffolk  Presbytery  as  a missionary  and  preached 
to  the  Indians  of  Long  Island  at  this  place. 

Native  minister: 

1744—1770  Samson  Occum 
Missionary : 

ca.  1770  David  Fowler 

1 01.  Tiverton,  R.  I.  Pocasset  Indian  Town. 

The  Pocasset  Indians  were  Christianized  after  King  Philip’s  War,  sometime 
between  1687  and  172 7.  Probably  Samuel  Church  of  Seconnet  and  Fall  River 
preached  here  under  the  care  of  John  Cotton,  Jr.,  of  Plymouth  and  Samuel 
Danforth  of  Taunton. 

The  Reverend  Othniel  Campbell  is  recorded  as  the  Indian  missionary  at  this 
place  in  1770  and  1775  and  doubtless  preached  here  to  the  natives  during  most 
of  the  years  he  was  settled  here,  1746—1775. 

Missionary : 

1 770— 1 775  Othniel  Campbell 

Of  these  101  Indian  churches,  missions,  schools  and  praying  towns,  25  were 
churches,  73  were  praying  towns  and  four  were  missions  in  Maine.  They  rep- 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1 649  1 9 5 

resent  four  denominations:  91  being  Congregational,  four  Baptist,  four  Roman 
Catholic  (in  Maine),  and  two  Moravian.  All  are  extinct  today  except  the  Bap- 
tist church  of  Gay  Head , founded  in  iyo2.  The  only  other  Indian  church  in 
Massachusetts  at  the  present  time  is  the  Baptist  church  at  Mashpee  which  was 
organized  by  Thomas  Jeffers  about  1830  and  now  takes  the  place  of  the  orig- 
inal Mashpee  Indian  Congregational  Church,  founded  by  Richard  Bourne  in 
1660,  but  which  became  extinct  in  1858. 

Seventy-seven  of  these  religious  organizations  were  in  Massachusetts,  14  in 
Connecticut,  four  in  Rhode  Island,  four  in  Maine,  and  two  were  located  on 
Long  Island  in  the  state  of  New  York.  The  Dochet  Island  mission  is  called  Ro- 
man Catholic  though  it  may  have  been  Huguenot  as  well,  for  there  were  pres- 
ent both  a Roman  priest  and  a Huguenot  clergyman.  It  should  also  be  borne  in 
mind  that  in  many  towns  the  few  Indians  dwelling  in  these  places  attended  and 
were  often  admitted  to  the  local  Congregational  churches. 

In  1774  a census  revealed  1,363  Indians  living  in  Connecticut,  of  whom  the 
great  part  (824)  lived  in  New  London  County.  In  1792  there  were  80  Mo- 
hegans  left.  Today  there  are  none. 

The  Narragansett  Indians  of  Rhode  Island  were  strongly  opposed  to  the 
propagation  of  the  Christian  religion  and  their  sachems  would  not  suffer  the 
gospel  to  be  preached  to  their  people.  Roger  Williams  made  laudable  attempts 
to  win  them  but  to  no  avail.  In  1730  there  were  985  Indians  in  Rhode  Island. 
In  1774,  by  which  time  Bristol,  Tiverton  and  Little  Compton  had  been  added 
to  Rhode  Island,  the  number  was  1,482,  but  in  1792  there  were  less  than  500, 
and  today  there  are  none. 

By  1792  it  is  supposed  there  were  no  Indians  in  New  Hampshire,  some  hav- 
ing removed  into  Canada  but  the  greater  part  having  become  extinct.  They 
were  never  very  numerous  in  Vermont  and  by  1792  that  state  was  entirely  de- 
void of  them.  (1  Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  1.  209-21 1.) 

In  the  District  of  Maine  in  1792  there  were  60  families  (about  300  souls) 
in  the  Penobscot  tribe  and,  in  1837,  362  at  Old  Town  in  Orono,  all  Roman 
Catholics.  The  Passamaquoddy  tribe  consisted  of  30  families  (150  souls)  in 
1792  and  in  1841  there  were  120  members  of  this  tribe  remaining  in  Perry, 
Maine,  all  Roman  Catholics.  Thus  in  1792  there  were  450  Indians  in  Maine, 
and  in  1840  there  were  482.  By  1890  there  were  only  140  left.  (See  also  Nor- 
ridgewock.) 

By  the  year  1849,  in  Massachusetts,  there  were  at  Chappaquiddick,  Chris- 
tiantown,  Gay  Head,  Fall  River,  Mashpee  (309  in  1840),  Herring  Pond, 
Grafton,  Webster,  Punkapoag,  Natick  and  Yarmouth  a total  of  847  Indians.  By 
this  time  they  were  generally  of  mixed  blood.  In  1945  the  Indian  population 
of  Massachusetts  consisted  of  114  at  Gay  Head  and  343  at  Mashpee,  a total 
of  457  souls. 


196  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

Inasmuch  as  town  boundaries  have  frequently  changed,  the  following  may 


assist  in  locating  Indian  praying  towns: 
Bourne,  see  Sandwich 

gartown,  Gay  Head,  Oak  Bluffs, 

Bridgewater,  see  Middleborough 

West  Tisbury 

Chilmark,  see  Gay  Head 

Mendon,  Uxbridge 

Concord,  Littleton 

Middleborough,  Lakeville 

Dartmouth,  Westport,  New  Bedford 

Montville,  New  London,  Norwich 

Dorchester,  Canton 

New  Bedford,  Dartmouth 

Dudley,  Webster 

New  London,  see  Montville,  Norwich 

Eastham,  Orleans 

Norwich,  see  New  London,  Montville 

Edgartown,  Oak  Bluffs 

Oak  Bluffs,  see  Edgartown 

Elizabeth  Isles,  Gosnold 

Oxford,  see  also  Sutton 

Freetown,  Fall  River 

Sandwich,  Bourne 

Hopkinton,  Ashland 

Scituate,  Pembroke 

Lakeville,  Middleborough 

Stoughton,  Canton 

Lebanon,  Columbia 

Woodstock,  Pomfret,  Thompson 

Martha’s  Vineyard,  see  Chilmark,  Ed- 

Worcester,  Auburn 

Index  of  Indian  Place  Names 

Acoaxet,  see  Westport 

Katamet,  Bourne 

Acushnet,  New  Bedford 

Kekamoochuck,  Oxford 

Aquittacus,  Lakeville 

Kektekicut,  Middleborough 

Ashumuit,  Mashpee 

Kitteaumet,  Bourne 

Assawompsett,  Lakeville 

Magunkog,  Ashland 

Canaumet,  Mashpee 

Makunkakoag,  Ashland 

Cataumet,  Bourne 

Manchaug,  Sutton 

Catawmut,  Plymouth 

Mannamit,  Bourne 

Chaubunagungamaug,  Webster 

Manexit,  Thompson,  Conn. 

Chappaquiddick,  Edgartown 

Manomet,  Plymouth 

Chequaquet,  Barnstable 

Mashpee 

Christiantown,  West  Tisbury 

Mattakees,  Yarmouth 

Coaxet,  Westport 

Mattakesit,  Pembroke 

Comassakumkait,  Bourne 

Meshawn,  Truro 

Cooxissett,  Rochester  (?) 

Mohegan,  Montville,  Norwich,  New 

Cotuhtikut,  Middleborough 

London 

Cotuit,  Mashpee 

Monomoy,  Chatham 

Cowesit,  Wareham 

Montauk,  Southampton,  L.  I. 

Coxit,  Westport 

Muckuckhonnike,  Chilmark 

Elizabeth  Islands,  Gosnold 

Musketaquid,  Concord 

Hassanamesit,  Grafton 

Myerscommet,  Nantucket 

Herring  Ponds,  Bourne 

Namatakeeset,  Pembroke 

Housatonic,  Stockbridge 

Nashamoies,  Edgartown 

i97 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1 649 


Nashaway,  Lancaster 
Nashobah,  Littleton 
Nashnakcmmuck,  Chilmark 
Natick 

Nauset,  Eastham,  Orleans 
Nehantic,  Lyme,  Conn. 
Nemaskct,  Lakeville 
Neponset,  Dorchester 
Nipmuc  or  Nipmug,  Mendon 
Nipmuc  River,  Blackstone  River 
Nobscusset,  Dennis 
Nonantum,  Newton 
Nope,  Martha’s  Vineyard 
Norridgewock  (Maine) 
Nukkehkummes,  Dartmouth 
Nunnepoag,  Edgartown 
Occawan,  Nantucket 
Ohkonkemme,  West  Tisbury 
Okkokonimesit,  Marlborough 
Okommokamesit,  Marlborough 
Packachoog,  see  Auburn 
Pakomit,  Canton 
Pamet,  Truro 
Panonakanit,  Wellfleet 
Pawkunnakutt,  Bristol,  R.  I. 
Pawkunnawrkut,  Yarmouth 
Pawpoesit,  Mashpee 
Pawtuckett,  Lowell 
Pecunet,  Canton 
Pentucket,  Lowell 
Pequot,  New  London,  Norwich 
Pispogutt,  Bourne 
Pocasset,  Bourne 
Pocasset,  Tiverton,  R.  I. 

Pokesit,  Bourne 
Pompesspisset,  Bourne 
Ponanummakut,  Wellfleet 
Potanumaquut,  Orleans,  Harwich 
Punkapoag,  Canton 
Quaboag,  Brookfield 


Quantisset,  Pomfret,  Conn. 
Quinshepauge,  Mendon 
Quittacus,  Lakeville 
Sahquatucket,  Harwich 
Sakonnet,  Little  Compton 
Saltwater  Pond,  Plymouth 
Sanchacantacket,  Oak  Bluffs 
Santuit,  Satuit,  Mashpee 
Satucket,  Harwich 
Scatacook,  Kent,  Conn. 

Scusset,  Bourne,  Sandwich 
Seconchgut,  Chilmark 
Sengekintacket,  Oak  Bluffs 
Shumuit,  Mashpee 
Skauton,  Sandwich 
Sokones,  Falmouth 
Squatesit,  Nantucket 
Succannesset,  Falmouth 
Sussconsett,  Falmouth 
Takeme,  West  Tisbury 
Takemmy,  West  Tisbury 
Talhanio,  Chilmark 
Titicut,  Middleborough 
Wabaage,  Brookfield 
Wabquissit,  Woodstock,  Conn. 
Waeuntug,  Wacantuck,  Uxbridge 
Wakoquet,  Falmouth 
Wamesit,  Lowell 
Wammasquid,  Nantucket 
Waquoit,  Falmouth 
Washacum,  Lancaster 
Watuppa  Ponds,  Fall  River 
Waywayontat,  Wareham 
Wecantuck,  Uxbridge 
Weesquobs,  Mashpee 
Weequakut,  Barnstable 
Wequodnoc,  Sharon,  Conn. 
Wequetequoch,  Stonington,  Conn. 
Weweantic,  Wareham 
Wewewantett,  Wareham 


1 98  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

The  Indian  Churches  of  New  England 


Massachusetts: 


No. 

Date 

Town 

Indian  Name 

Parish 

I. 

5- 

1676 

Bourne 

Commassakumkait  1658 

2. 

8. 

1767 

Bourne 

Pocasset 

1674 

3- 

17- 

1674 

Chilmark 

Nashnakemmuck 

165  I 

4- 

22. 

1690 

Dartmouth 

Nukkehkummees 

1670 

5- 

27. 

1659 

Edgartown 

Chappaquiddick 

1646 

6. 

33- 

1663 

Gay  Head 

7- 

34- 

1702 

Gay  Head 

(Baptist) 

1702 

8. 

37* 

1671 

Grafton 

Hassanamesit 

1651 

9* 

40. 

1674 

Lakeville 

Nemasket 

1665 

10. 

41. 

1674 

Lakeville 

Assawompsett 

1665 

1 1. 

48. 

1670 

Mashpee 

1660 

1 2. 

56. 

1674 

Middleborough 

Titicut 

1665 

i3- 

60. 

1665 

Nantucket 

Occawan 

1661 

14. 

61. 

1694 

Nantucket 

1674 

15- 

62. 

1694 

Nantucket 

(Baptist) 

16. 

66. 

1660 

Natick 

1646 

17- 

72. 

1670 

Oak  Bluffs 

Sanchacantacket 

1646 

18. 

74- 

1720 

Orleans 

Potanumaquut 

1670 

19. 

83. 

1734 

Stockbridge 

Housatonic 

1734 

20. 

93- 

1680 

West  Tisbury 

Christiantown 

1660 

Rhode 

Island: 

21. 

14- 

1702 

Charlestown 

22. 

J5- 

1750 

Charlestown 

(Baptist) 

Connecticut: 

23- 

39- 

1740 

Kent 

Scatacook 

(Moravian) 

24. 

57- 

1770 

Montville 

Mohegan 

(Baptist) 

25. 

82. 

1741 

Sharon 

Wequodnoc 

(Moravian) 

All  are  now  extinct  except  number  7 above,  Gay  Head  Baptist  Church. 

II 

T he  'Missionary  Preachers 

The  numbers  in  this  and  the  following  section  refer  to  the  Indian  Churches  in 
the  preceding  section. 

[For  biographical  details  see  Weis,  Colonial  Clergy  oj  New  England .] 

Adams,  Eliphalet,  44,  68,  71,  99  Barber,  Jonathan,  71 

Badger,  Stephen,  66  Baxter,  Joseph,  60 

Baker,  Daniel,  66  Baylies,  Frederic,  27,  93 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1649  199 


Billings,  Richard,  44 
Bondet,  Daniel,  75 
Bourne,  Ezra,  48 

Bourne,  Joseph,  6,  16,  3 1,  48,  73,  74, 

96 

Bourne,  Richard,  3,  6,  16,  23,  31,  38, 

48,  49>  73.  74>  87,  89,  91,  96 
Bourne,  Shearjashub,  48 
Brett,  Silas,  30 
Bruce,  David,  82 
Campbell,  Othniel,  101 
Clap,  Elisha,  48 
Cleland,  Robert,  71 
Cotton,  John,  Jr.,  3,  5,  6,  22,  23,  31, 
33,  38,  40,  41,  44,  60,  67,  72,  76, 
77,  78,  80,  81,  89,  92,  93,  96,  IOI 
Cotton,  Josiah,  3,  5,  76,  77,  78,  92 
Cotton,  Roland,  3,  5,  6,  48,  49,  81 
Crocker,  Joseph,  74 
Danforth,  Samuel,  23,  30,  40,  41,  67, 
92,  101 

Davenport,  James,  71 
Deake,  Edward,  14,  98 
Dwight,  Josiah,  95 
Edwards,  Jonathan,  83 
Eells,  Nathaniel,  84 
Eliot,  John,  12,  25?  37)  4 3 ? 45.  4^> 
48,  55,  66,  69,  79,  85,  86,  88,  90, 

95 

Eliot,  John,  Jr.,  12,  66 
Fessenden,  Benjamin,  6,  8 1 
Fish,  Joseph,  84 
Fish,  Phinehas,  5,  48 
Fitch,  James,  71 
Folger,  Peter,  27,  60,  63 
Forbes,  Eli,  1 1 
Fowler,  David,  100 
Gleason,  Charles,  90 
Glover,  Habakkuk,  12 
Gookin,  Daniel,  Jr.,  66 
Green,  Joseph,  48,  74,  96 
Greenleaf,  Daniel,  3,  16,  38,  73,  74, 
96 


Hancock,  Nathaniel,  17,  33,  93 
Hawley,  Gideon,  3,  5,  6,  1 1,  31,  48, 
73,  74,  81,  83,  96 
Hoar,  John,  21 
Howe,  Perley,  90 
Hubbard,  Willard,  1,  71 
Hunt,  Samuel,  22,  67 
Ingraham,  Duncan,  5 
James,  Thomas,  26 
Jewett,  David,  71 
Kirkland,  Samuel,  83 
Labourie,  James,  75 
Latham,  David,  99 
Leveridge,  William,  5 
Mason,  Capt.  John,  71 
Mayhew,  Experience,  17,  27,  33,  60, 
68,  71,  72,  84,  93 

Mayhew,  John,  17,  27,  33,  36,  60, 
94 

Mayhew,  Thomas,  17,  27,  33,  36,  60, 
72.  93 

Mayhew,  Thomas,  Jr.,  27 
Mayhew,  Zachariah,  17,  27,  33,  36, 
72,  93 

Metcalf,  Joseph,  3 1 

Morse,  Joseph,  1 2 

Niles,  Samuel,  14 

Noyes,  James,  84 

Peabody,  Oliver,  66 

Pierson,  Abraham,  10 

Pitkin,  Timothy,  98 

Powell,  Joseph,  82 

Rauch,  Christian  Henry,  39 

Rawson,  Grindall,  37,  55 

Ross,  Thomas,  15 

Sergeant,  John,  83 

Sergeant,  John,  Jr.,  83 

Smith,  Cotton  Mather,  83 

Thacher,  Peter,  12,  40,  41 

Tompson,  William,  59,  68 

Torrey,  Joseph,  14 

Torrey,  Josiah,  17,  33,  93,  94 

Treat,  Samuel,  16,  38,  73,  87,  91 


200 


The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 


Tupper,  Eldad,  5 
Tupper,  Elisha,  5,  6,  8,  89 
Tupper,  Capt.  Thomas,  5 
Tupper,  Capt.  Thomas,  Jr.,  5 
Weeks,  John,  36 
West,  Stephen,  83 
West,  Thomas,  80 
Wheelock,  Eleazer,  57,  71,  97 
White,  Timothy,  60,  61,  63 
Whitman,  Samuel,  98 
Wiswall,  Samuel,  27,  60,  61,  63,  72 
Woodbridge,  Timothy,  83 

Total:  90. 

Roman  Catholic  Missionaries  in 
Maine : 

Aubrey,  Nicholas,  24 
Aubry,  Joseph,  70 
Biard,  Peter,  13,  58 
Druillettes,  Gabriel,  13,  70 
Leo,  13 

Masse,  Ennemond,  58 
Rasle,  Sebastian,  70 
Thevet,  13 

Total:  8. 


Occasional  Preachers  and  Mission- 
aries: 

Charles  Chauncey,  D.D.,  Boston 
Benjamin  Colman,  D.D.,  Boston 
Samuel  Cooper,  D.D.,  Boston 
Andrew  Eliot,  D.D.,  Boston 
Thomas  Foxcroft,  Boston 
Cotton  Mather,  D.D.,  Boston 
Increase  Mather,  D.D.,  Boston 
Richard  Mather,  Dorchester 
Jonathan  Mayhew,  D.D.,  Boston 
Charles  Morton,  Charlestown 
Ezekiel  Rogers,  Rowley 
Samuel  Sewall,  Boston 
Thomas  Shepard,  Cambridge 
John  Smith,  Sandwich 
Ralph  Thacher,  Chilmark 
Nehemiah  Walter,  Roxbury 
William  Walton,  Marblehead 
Edward  Wigglesworth,  D.D.,  Cam- 
bridge 

Roger  Williams,  Providence 

John  Wilson,  Boston 

Total:  20.  Grand  total:  1 1 8 . 


Ill 

Native  Preachers  Among  the  Indians 


Aaron  Pomham,  1 2 
Abel  Wauwompukque,  33,  35 
Amos  Ahaton,  12 
Anthony,  66 
Asa,  36 

Benjamin  Larnell,  H.C. 
Benjamin  Nompash,  44 
Benjamin  Tarshema,  60 
Caleb,  61,  63 

Caleb  Cheeshahteaumuch,  A.B., 
H.C.,  1665 
Charles  Aham,  56 
Charles  of  Mannamit,  5,  6,  89 


Codpuganut,  63 

Daniel,  79 

Daniel  Hinckley,  92 

Daniel  Munshee,  73,  87,  91 

Daniel  Shoko,  19,  33,  36 

Daniel  Spotso,  63 

Daniel  Toppohwompait,  66 

David  Capy,  33 

David  Wuttnomanomin,  33 

Edward  Nedson,  84  (Indian? ) 

Elisha  Paaonut,  33,  35 

Elisha  Ralph,  74 

Ephraim  Abraham,  34 


1 94&]  The  New  England  Company  gf  1649 


George,  46 
George,  44 
Great  Tom,  73 
Hercules,  38 
Hosea  Manhut,  93 
Indian  John,  80 
Isaac,  92 

Isaac  Decamy,  34 

Isaac  Jeffrey,  5,  6,  8,  77 

Isaac  Ompany,  93 

Jabez  Athern,  77,  93 

Jacob  Hedge,  5,  77 

James  Printer,  37,  88 

James  Sepinnu,  93 

James  Simons,  1 5 

James  Speen,  2 

Janawannit,  1 7 

Jannohquoso,  36 

Japheth  Hannit,  17,  22,  33 

Japheth  Hannit,  Jr.,  72 

Jeremy  Robin,  96 

Jethro,  43 

Joash  Pannos,  33 

Job,  H.C.,  47 

Job  Kattenanit,  1 

Job  Muckemuck,  60,  63 

Job  Peosin,  72 

Job  Russel,  72 

Jocelin,  41 

Joel  Sims,  93 

Old  John,  3 1 

John  of  Falmouth,  31 

John  Amanhut,  93 

John  Asherman,  60,  63 

John  Briant,  67 

John  Cooper,  71 

John  Cosens,  16 

John  Gibbs,  60 

John  Hiacoomes,  27,  60 

John  Hiacoomes,  Jr.,  41 

John  Mettawen,  98 

John  Moqua,  86 

John  Nessnummin,  66 


John  Nohnoso,  72 
John  Ralph,  38,  74 
John  Sassamon,  40,  41,  56 
John  Shohkow,  93 
John  Simon,  9,  44,  56 
John  Speen,  66 
John  Symons,  56 
John  Thomas,  45,  66 
John  Tackanash,  17,  20,  28, 
Jonahauwasuit,  66 
Jonas  Asosit  (Hasaway),  60 
Jonathan  Amos,  27,  33 
Joseph,  63 
Joseph,  90 
Joseph  Amos,  34,  48 
Joseph  Briant,  8,  48,  74 
Joseph  Joshnin,  56 
Joseph  Papenah,  8,  31 
Joseph  Tuckappawill,  37 
Joseph  Wanno,  77 
Joshua  Momatchegin,  27 
Joshua  Tackquannash,  29 
Joshua  Ralph,  74 
Josiah  Shanks,  48,  49 
Josiah  Thomas,  29 
Josias  Hossuit,  34 
Josias  Hossuit,  Jr.,  34 
Manasseh,  3,  23,  38 
Menekish,  38 
Meshawin,  6 
Metaark,  33 
Micah  Shohkow,  93 
Momonequem,  17 
Monatunquanet,  79 
Naumachegin,  27 
Nausquonit,  47 
Nehemiah  Abel,  56 
Netowah,  63 
Nicholas,  16 
Noah,  63 
Panupuhquah,  18 
Paul  Mashquattuhkooit,  72 
Peter,  alias  Sakantucket,  6 


201 


72>  94- 


202 


[dec. 


The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts 


Peter  Hayt,  63 

Thomas  Jeffers,  34,  48 

Peter  Ohquanhut,  33 

Thomas  Sekins,  56 

Potanummatack,  87,  91 

Thomas  Simons,  22 

Quequenah,  63 

Thomas  Sockakonnit,  72 

Ralph  Jones,  5 

Tom  (Great  Tom),  73 

Sampson,  47,  95 

Tukamon,  71 

Sampson  Natuso,  36 

Waabesktamin,  85 

Samson  Occum,  57,  71,  97,  100 

Wattananmaktuk,  6 

Samuel,  63 

Weebox,  71 

Samuel,  H.C.,  46 

William  Ahaton  (Hahaton),  12 

Samuel  Church,  30,  44 

William  Apes,  48 

Samuel  Holms,  22 

William  Awinian,  1 2 

Samuel  Kakenehew,  34 

William  Briant,  67 

Sasomet,  88 

William  Lay,  1 7 

Silas  Paul,  34 

William  Nummuck,  77 

Simon  Ephraim,  1 

William  Simons,  22 

Simon  Popmonnit,  48,  49 

Will  Skipeag,  78 

Simon  Wickett,  8 1 

Wohwohquoshhadt,  I,  79 

Solomon,  47 

Wunnanauhkomun,  93 

Solomon  Briant,  5,  6,  48,  74,  96 

Wunnohson,  63 

Stephen,  40,  56 

Wuttanamattuck,  6 

Stephen  Shohkow,  19,  93 

Zachariah  Osooit,  33 

Stephen  Tackamason,  17,  34 

Symon  Beckom,  46 

Total  whites  1 18 

Thomas  Coshaumag,  74 

Total  Indians  157 

Thomas  Felix,  56 

Total  275 

IV 

The  New  England  Secretaries  and  Treasurers  of  the  Corporation  of 

1649 

1.  Edward  Rawson  (born  at  Gillingham,  England,  16  April  1615,  died  in 
Boston,  27  August  1693)  was  Secretary  of  the  Massachusetts  Bay  Colony 
1650-1686,  and  clerk  and  factor  of  the  New  England  Company  at  Boston 
1650—1680.  Nearly  all  the  business  of  the  Company  in  America  passed  through 
his  hands.  He  settled  at  Newbury,  1637,  but  removed  to  Boston  in  1650  where 
he  was  a member  of  the  Old  South  Church.  With  Samuel  Sewall  he  was  co-author 
of  Justijication  oj  the  Revolution  in  Nezv  England. 

2.  William  Stoughton  (born  about  1631,  probably  in  England,  died  un- 
married at  Dorchester  7 July  1701),  Harvard  College  1650,  Fellow  of  New 
College,  Oxford,  Lieutenant-Governor  of  Massachusetts  1692-1701,  served 
as  Secretary  and  Treasurer  of  the  New  England  Company  at  Boston  1680— 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1649  203 

1699.  During  his  regime  commissioners  appointed  by  the  Corporation  in  Lon- 
don took  the  place  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  United  Colonies.  He  was  Judge 
1676-1692,  Chief  Justice  1692-1701;  Captain  1677,  Major  1680,  Lieuten- 
ant-Colonel and  Commander-in-Chief  for  six  years.  He  gave  Stoughton  Hall 
to  Harvard  College  in  1698. 

3.  Samuel  Sewall  (born  at  Horton,  near  Basingstoke,  England,  28  March 
1652,  died  at  Boston  1 January  1729/30),  Harvard  College  1671,  Chief  Jus- 
tice of  Massachusetts  1718—1728,  and  Secretary  and  Treasurer  of  the  New 
England  Company  at  Boston  1699—1724.  The  meeting  house  for  the  Indian 
church  at  Herring  Ponds  was  built  at  his  expense  1687—1691.  He  was  a mem- 
ber of  the  Old  South  Church,  was  Captain  of  the  Ancient  & Honorable  Artil- 
lery Company  1701 ; Assistant  1684—1686,  Judge  of  the  Superior  Court  1684- 
1718,  Chief  Justice  1718-1728,  Judge  of  Probate  1715—1728.  His  account 
book  as  Treasurer  of  the  Company  reveals  that  from  1711  to  1721  the  Com- 
pany contributed  £1,300  to  Harvard  College.  He  was  a voluminous  corre- 
spondent, diarist  and  author. 

4.  Adam  Winthrop  (born  at  Bristol,  England,  3 March  1676,  died  at  Bos- 
ton 2 October  1743),  Harvard  College  1694,  was  Secretary  of  the  New  Eng- 
land Company  at  Boston  1724—1733  and  Treasurer  1724— 1741.  He  was  com- 
missioned Justice  of  the  Peace  1702,  Judge  of  the  Inferior  Court  of  Common 
Pleas  1715— 1740,  Chief  Justice  1740,  and  Councillor  1716—1730.  He  was 
member  of  the  Second  Church  in  Boston;  was  Ensign  of  the  Artillery  Company 
1702,  Major  1706,  and  Lieutenant-Colonel  1709.  He  speculated  in  land  and 
copper  mining,  lost  heavily  and  was  obliged  to  resign  all  his  offices. 

5.  Anthony  Stoddard  (born  Boston,  24  September  1678,  died  there  11 
March  1747/8),  Harvard  College  1697.  He  was  a wealthy  merchant  and  Judge 
and  served  as  Secretary  of  the  Company  at  Boston  1 733—1 748.  “He  was  a Lover 
of  the  ancient  religious  Principles  of  New  England, — or  religious  Liberty  and 
Forbearance,”  and  was  a member  of  the  Old  South  Church.  He  served  as  Jus- 
tice of  the  Peace  1 71 5,  special  Justice  1725,  Judge  1733,  and  Councillor  1735— 
1742. 

6.  Andrew  Oliver  (born  at  Boston  28  March  1706,  died  there  3 March 
1774),  Harvard  College  1724,  Lieutenant-Governor  and  Judge,  was  Treas- 
urer of  the  New  England  Company  at  Boston  1741— 1774,  Secretary  1748— 
1774,  and  guardian  to  the  Indians  of  Suffolk  County.  His  father  and  uncle, 
Governor  Belcher,  were  also  commissioners  of  the  New  England  Company. 
Governor  Thomas  Hutchinson  was  his  brother-in-law.  Mr.  Oliver  was  a mem- 
ber of  the  Old  South  Church,  Justice  of  the  Peace  1739,  Councillor  1747— 
1757,  Secretary  of  the  Province  of  Massachusetts  1757— 1771,  and  Lieutenant- 
Governor  1771— 1774.  His  home  was  destroyed  by  the  great  fire  in  Boston  in 
1 760.  Five  years  later  his  home  was  sacked  by  a mob  because  of  his  appointment 
as  agent  of  the  Stamp  Act  in  Massachusetts,  though  that  appointment  had  been 
made  without  his  knowledge  and  against  his  wishes. 


204  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 


V 

The  General  Superintendents  of  Indian  Affairs  Appointed  by  the  Gen- 
eral Court  of  the  Massachusetts  Bay  Colony 

1656—1657  Major-General  Daniel  Gookin 
1658—1661  Major-General  Humphrey  Atherton 
1661—1687  Major-General  Daniel  Gookin 
1687—1709  Captain  Thomas  Prentice 

Major-General  Daniel  Gookin  was  born  in  Kent  about  1612  and  settled  in 
Virginia,  1621,  where  he  was  a member  of  the  House  of  Burgesses  from  Upper 
Norfolk  January  1641/2.  He  came  to  New  England  in  1644,  principally  on 
account  of  his  friendship  for  the  Reverend  William  Tompson  of  Braintree, 
whose  missionary  efforts  in  Virginia,  Cotton  Mather  affirms,  attracted  Gookin 
as  one  of  the  “constellation”  of  his  converts. 

“GOOKINS  was  one  of  these:  by  Tomf  son’s  pains 
CHRIST  and  NEW-ENGLAND , a dear  GOOKINS  gains.” 

Mr.  Gookin  for  about  forty  years  was  one  of  the  most  active  and  valuable  citi- 
zens of  Massachusetts.  On  26  March  1644  he  joined  the  First  Church  in  Bos- 
ton, whence  he  was  dismissed  to  Cambridge  Church,  1648.  In  1645  he  was  a 
member  of  the  Ancient  and  Honorable  Artillery  Company,  was  Captain  of  the 
Cambridge  Military  Company  1648,  being  “a  very  forward  man  to  advance 
martial  discipline,  and  withal  the  truths  of  Christ,”  was  Major  of  the  Middle- 
sex Regiment  1676—1680,  and  Major-General  of  all  the  military  forces  of  the 
Colony  1681—1687.  He  served  Cambridge  as  selectman  1660—1672,  and  Dep- 
uty to  the  General  Court  1648  and  1651,  the  latter  year  also  serving  as  Speaker 
of  the  House.  For  thirty-five  years  he  was  Assistant  or  Magistrate  for  the  Bay 
Colony,  1652-1687. 

He  took  a deep  interest  in  the  conversion  of  the  Indians  and  rendered  val- 
uable assistance  to  the  Apostle  Eliot  in  this  way.  He  was  the  first  to  be  appointed 
General  Superintendent  of  Indian  Affairs  by  the  General  Court.  His  duty  was 
to  visit  the  Indian  villages,  holding  courts  among  them,  appointing  officers  and 
making  provision  for  the  general  welfare  of  the  natives. 

Two  of  his  sons  entered  the  ministry:  Daniel,  Harvard  College,  1669,  was 
minister  at  Sherborn  and  preached  to  the  Indians  at  Natick;  Nathaniel,  Har- 
vard College,  1675,  was  minister  at  Cambridge;  Samuel,  the  youngest  son,  was 
Sheriff  of  Middlesex  County  1689. 

But  the  works  for  which  Mr.  Gookin  is  particularly  famous  are  his  two  his- 
tories of  the  Indians:  Historical  Collections  of  the  Indians  of  Massachusetts , 
1674,  printed  by  the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  1792;  and  his  History 
of  the  Christian  Indians  of  Massachusetts , 1675,  1676  and  1677 , printed  by  the 
American  Antiquarian  Society,  1836.  After  a long  and  useful  life  he  died  at 
Cambridge,  19  March  1686/7,  aged  75  years. 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1649  205 

Major-General  Humphrey  Atherton  was  born  at  Preston,  Lancashire,  Eng- 
land, 1609,  the  son  of  Edmund  Atherton  of  Winstanley  in  Wigan.  He  came  to 
Dorchester  in  1635.  He  proved  to  be  one  of  the  most  valuable  men  in  the  Col- 
ony and  his  death  by  accident  in  1661  was  a great  loss  both  to  Dorchester  and 
to  New  England.  Captain  Edward  Johnson  described  him  in  1651  as  “a  very 
lively  couragious  man  ...  of  a cheerfull  spirit,  and  intire  for  the  Country.”  By 
23  August  1636  he  had  joined  the  First  Church  in  Dorchester  and,  on  2 May 
1638,  was  admitted  freeman  of  the  Colony.  He  became  a member  of  the  An- 
cient and  Honorable  Artillery  Company  of  Boston  1638,  was  its  Senior  Sergeant 
1642,  Ensign  1645,  Lieutenant  1646,  and  Captain  1650  and  1658.  He  was 
also  Lieutenant  of  the  Dorchester  Military  Company  1643,  Captain  of  that 
company  1646,  Major  of  the  Suffolk  Regiment  1652—1661,  Major-General  of 
the  Massachusetts  forces  1656—1661,  and  chief  military  officer  in  New  Eng- 
land 1658-1661.  In  1645  the  Commissioners  of  the  United  Colonies  appointed 
a Council  of  War  and  placed  Captain  Myles  Standish  of  Plymouth  at  its  head. 
Captains  John  Mason,  John  Leverett  and  Humphrey  Atherton  were  his  col- 
leagues. Mr.  Atherton  was  chosen  Commissioner  of  the  United  Colonies  in  re- 
serve 1656,  1659  and  1660. 

He  was  as  distinguished  in  his  civil  career  as  in  his  military  service,  being  con- 
tinually in  the  public  service  of  Dorchester  and  the  Massachusetts  Bay  Colony 
from  1638  to  1661.  He  was  selectman  twelve  years,  being  chairman  of  the  board 
seven  years,  town  treasurer  three  years  and  overseer  of  the  Dorchester  school  in 
1645.  He  served  as  deputy  to  the  General  Court  ten  years  and  was  Speaker  of 
the  House  in  1653.  From  1654  to  1661  he  was  Assistant  (or  magistrate)  of  the 
Bay  Colony. 

Mr.  Atherton  was  much  respected  for  his  religious  character  and  spirit.  He 
had  great  experience  and  skill  in  his  treatment  of  the  Indians,  manifesting  much 
humanity  and  sympathy  for  their  unhappy  condition  but  exercising  great  en- 
ergy and  decision  of  character  when  dealing  with  them  if  necessary.  His  ef- 
forts to  instruct  them  are  mentioned  in  the  minutes  of  the  New  England  Con- 
federation. 

Reverend  John  Eliot,  the  “Apostle  to  the  Indians,”  directed  the  following 
letter  to  him  in  1657: 

“To  his  much  honored  and  respected  friend,  Major  Atherton,  at  his  house 
in  Dorchester,  these  present 

“ Much  honored  and  beloved  in  the  Lord:  Though  our  poore  Indians  are 
much  molested  in  most  places  in  their  meetings  in  way  of  civilities,  yet  the  Lord 
hath  put  it  into  your  hearts  to  suffer  us  to  meet  quietly  at  Ponkipog,  for  wh  I 
thank  God,  and  am  Grateful  to  yourselfe  and  all  the  good  people  of  Dorchester. 
And  now  that  our  meetings  may  be  the  more  comfortable  and  favrable,  my  re- 
quest is,  that  you  would  please  to  further  these  two  motions:  first,  that  you  would 
please  to  make  an  order  in  youre  towne,  and  record  it  in  your  Towne  record,  that 
you  approve  and  allow  the  Indians  at  Ponkipog  there  to  sit  downe  and  make  a 


20  6 The  Colonial  Society  of  Alassachusetts  [dec. 

towne  and  to  injoy  such  accomodations  as  may  be  competent  to  maintain  God’s 
ordinances  among  them  another  day.  My  second  request  is,  that  you  would  ap- 
point fitting  men,  who  may  in  a fitt  season  bound  and  lay  out  the  same,  and  re- 
cord that  alsoe.  And  thus  commending  you  to  the  Lord,  I rest. 

“Yours  to  serve  in  the  service  of  Jesus  Christ, 

John  Eliot.” 

On  7 December  1657  the  town  of  Dorchester  appointed  Major  Humphrey 
Atherton,  Lieutenant  Roger  Clap,  Ensign  Hopestill  Foster,  and  William  Sum- 
ner a committee  to  lay  out  the  Indian  plantation  at  Ponkapoag,  not  to  exceed 
6,000  acres  of  land;  and  it  was  voted  “that  the  Indians  shall  not  alienate  or  sell 
their  plantations  unto  any  English”  upon  penalty  of  losing  or  forfeiting  their 
lands. 

By  1653  Mr.  Atherton  had  been  appointed  Superintendent  of  Indian  Af- 
fairs and  in  1658  the  General  Court  appointed  him  commissioner  to  take  care 
of  the  Indians,  watch  over  their  interests  and  appoint  commissioners  in  the  sev- 
eral Indian  plantations  in  the  Bay  Colony.  When  Mr.  Gookin  went  to  England 
in  1656  Major  Atherton  was  chosen  to  succeed  him  as  the  General  Superin- 
tendent of  Indian  Affairs  for  the  Colony,  which  position  he  continued  to  hold 
until  his  death  in  1661. 

His  tomb  in  Dorchester  bears  the  following  inscription: 

“Here  lies  our  Captain,  & Majr.  of  Svffolk  was  withall; 

A Godly  Magestrate  was  he,  & Major  Generali. 

Two  Troops  of  Horses  with  him  here  came,  such  worth  his  loue  did  crave; 

Ten  Companies  of  foot  also  mourning  march’d  to  his  Graue. 

Let  all  who  Read  be  sure  to  keep  ye  Faith  as  he  hath  done. 

With  Christ  he  liues  now  Crown’d,  his  name  was  Humphrey  Atherton. 

He  Died  ye  1 6th  of  Sepr.  1661.” 

Captain  Thomas  Prentice,  born  about  1621,  of  Cambridge  and  Newton,  was 
chosen  Lieutenant  of  the  Troop  of  Horse,  Middlesex  County  Regiment,  1656, 
and  Captain  1662.  He  served  with  distinction  during  King  Philip’s  War  in 
the  Mount  Hope  and  Narragansett  campaigns  and  in  the  Great  Swamp  Fight, 
and  he  commanded  the  troop  which  escorted  Sir  Edmund  Andros  as  a prisoner 
from  Rhode  Island  to  Boston  in  August,  1689.  He  was  Deputy  to  the  General 
Court  1672—1674,  Justice  of  the  Peace  1686,  and  Superintendent  of  the  In- 
dians of  Massachusetts  1687.  “An  active,  energetic,  and  valuable  public  officer,” 
he  died  at  Cambridge  7 July  1709,  aged  89  years.  His  grave  bears  the  following 
epitaph: 

“He  that’s  here  interr’d  needs  no  versifying, 

A virtuous  life  will  keep  the  name  from  dying: 

He’ll  live,  though  poets  cease  their  scribbling  rhyme, 

When  that  this  stone  shall  moulder’d  be  by  time.” 


1948]  T he  New  England  Company  of  1649  2°7 


VI 

The  New  England  Commissioners  oj  the  New  England  Company  oj 

1649 

By  virtue  of  their  office  as  Commissioners  of  the  United  Colonies  1649-1685 
— all  dates  inclusive.1 

Captain  John  Allyn,  1674—1675,  1677—1679,  1682. 

Honorable  Matthew  Allyn,  1660,  1664. 

Captain  John  Astwood,  1649,  1653—1654. 

Governor  Richard  Bellingham,  1670. 

Governor  William  Bradford,  1649,  1652—1653,  1656. 

Major  William  Bradford,  1673,  1680—1684. 

Governor  Simon  Bradstreet,  1649-1667,  1669—1672. 

Honorable  John  Browne,  1649—1655. 

Major  Peter  Bulkeley,  1682—1685. 

Deputy-Governor  James  Cudworth,  1655,  1657,  1678. 

Captain  John  Cullicke,  1652—1653,  1655. 

Deputy-Governor  Thomas  Danforth,  1662—1665,  1667—1670,  1672—1673, 
1675,  1677-1679. 

Major-General  Daniel  Denison,  1654—1657,  1659—1664. 

Governor  Joseph  Dudley,  1677—1679,  1682,  1683. 

Governor  Thomas  Dudley,  1649. 

Governor  Theophilus  Eaton,  1649—1651,  1653—1657. 

Governor  John  Endicott,  1653,  1658. 

Honorable  Benjamin  Fenn,  1661—1664. 

Deputy-Governor  Stephen  Goodyear,  1650—1652. 

Honorable  Timothy  Hatherley,  1651. 

Major  William  Hathorne,  1650—1654,  1672—1673. 

Governor  John  Haynes,  1650. 

Governor  Thomas  Hinckley,  1667,  1673—1685. 

Governor  Edward  Hopkins,  1649—1651. 

Deputy-Governor  William  Jones,  1664. 

Governor  William  Leete,  1655-1667,  1673,  1677-1678. 

Governor  John  Leverett,  1667—1670. 

Deputy-Governor  Roger  Ludlow,  1651—1653. 

Deputy-Governor  John  Mason,  1654-1657,  1660-1661. 

1 Records  of  the  Governor  and  Company  of  the  Massachusetts  Bay  in  New  England , 
1628—1686;  Records  of  the  Colony  of  New  Plymouth , IX  and  x,  being  the  “Acts  of 

the  Commissioners  of  the  United  Colonies  of  New  England”}  Public  Records  of  the 
Colony  of  Connecticut , 1636— 1776;  Arthur  Adams,  Register  of  the  Pedigrees  and 
Services  of  Ancestors  [Conn.  Soc.  of  Colonial  Wars]  (Hartford,  1941),  1131—12645 
1 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  v.  226—229  > Frederic  Baylies,  Memoir  of  Plymouth  Colony , 
II.  150— 192. 


2o8  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

Honorable  William  Pitkin,  1678. 

Governor  Thomas  Prence,  1650,  1653—1658,  1661—1663,  1670-1672. 
Honorable  Edward  Rawson,  1658.  Secretary  and  Treasurer , 1650—1680. 
Honorable  James  Richards,  1672,  1675 , 1679. 

Ensign  Constant  Southworth,  1669. 

Captain  Thomas  Southworth,  1659—1661,  1664—1668. 

Lieutenant-Governor  William  Stoughton,  1673—1677,  1680—1685.  Secretary 
and  Treasurer , 1680—1699. 

Honorable  John  Talcott,  1656—1658. 

Major  John  Talcott,  1662-1663,  1669-1671,  1673,  1676,  1683-1684. 
Governor  Robert  Treat,  1681—1684. 

Governor  John  Webster,  1654. 

Governor  Thomas  Welles,  1649,  1654,  1659. 

Governor  Josiah  Winslow,  1658—1660,  1662—1680. 

Governor  John  Winthrop,  Jr.,  1658—1660,  1663,  1665,  1668—1669,  1672, 
1675. 

Major-General  Wait  Still  Winthrop,  1675. 

Honorable  Samuel  Wyllys,  1661—1662,  1664,  1666—1667,  1670-1671. 


Commissioners  of  the  Nezv  England  Company  oj  1649,  appointed  30  Septem- 
ber 1 685 .2 


Governor  Simon  Bradstreet,  1685—1697. 

Lieutenant-Governor  William  Stoughton,  1685—1701. 
Governor  Joseph  Dudley,  1685—1693.  (1677—1683) 

Major  Peter  Bulkeley,  1685—1688. 

Governor  Thomas  Hinckley,  1685—1699. 

Reverend  Increase  Mather,  D.D.,  1692—1699. 

Governor  Sir  William  Phips,  Knight,  1692—1694. 

Major  John  Richards,  1692—1694. 

Major-General  Wait  Winthrop,  1692—1699.  (1675) 

Reverend  Charles  Morton,  1693—1698. 

Captain  Gabriel  Bernon,  1695. 


(1649-1672) 

(1673-1685) 

(1702-1720) 

(1682-1685) 

(1667-1685) 

(1699-1723) 


(1699-1717) 


Commissioners  oj  the  Nezv  England  Company  oj  1649 , appointed  17  Febru- 
ary 1698/9,  confirmed  14  October  1699. 3 

Governor  Richard  Coote,  Earl  of  Bellomont,  1699—1701. 
Lieutenant-Governor  William  Stoughton,  1699—1701.  (1685—1699) 


2 George  Parker  Winship,  “Samuel  Sewall  and  the  New  England  Company,” 
Proc.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc .,  lxvii.  66;  Ford,  Some  Correspondence , 80—82. 

3 Records  of  the  New  England  Company,  17  Feb.  1698/9,  in  History  of  the  New 
England  Company  (London,  1871),  246;  Proc.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  lxvii.  693  5 Coll. 
Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  V.  502. 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1649  209 

Major-General  Wait  Winthrop,  1699-1717.  (1675)  (1692-1699) 

Reverend  Increase  Mather,  D.D.,  1699—1723.  (1692—1699) 

Reverend  Cotton  Mather,  D.D.,  1699—1728. 

Reverend  Nchemiah  Walter,  1699—1750. 

Honorable  Samuel  Sewall,  1699—1730.  Secretary  and  Treasurer , 1699—1724. 
Colonel  John  Foster,  1699—1711. 

Honorable  Peter  Sergeant,  1699—1714. 

Thomas  Banister,  Esquire,  1699—1709. 

Governor  Joseph  Dudley,  1702—1720.  (1677—1699) 


Commissioners  oj  the  New  Englatid  Company  oj  1649 > appointed  3 August 
I 704,  and  their  successors.4 

Major-General  Wait  Winthrop,  1 704-1  71  7.  (Reappointed) 

Reverend  Increase  Mather,  D.D.,  1704—1723.  (Reappointed) 

Reverend  Cotton  Mather,  D.D.,  1704—1728.  (Reappointed) 

Captain  Gabriel  Bernon,  1704—1720.  (Reappointed) 

Reverend  Nehemiah  Walter,  1704— 1750.  (Reappointed) 

Honorable  Samuel  Sewall,  1704— 1730.  Secretary  and  Treasurer , 1699—1724. 
(Reappointed) 

Honorable  Peter  Sergeant,  1704— 1714. 

Colonel  John  Foster,  1704— 1 71 1. 

Thomas  Banister,  Esquire,  1704— 1709. 

Governor  Joseph  Dudley,  1704—1720. 

Colonel  John  Higginson,  1704— 1719. 

Honorable  Edward  Bromfield,  1704—1734. 

Honorable  Eliakim  Hutchinson,  1704—1718. 

Colonel  Penn  Townsend,  1704—1727. 

Honorable  Jeremiah  Dummer,  1704—1718. 

Honorable  Simeon  Stoddard,  1704— 1719. 

Honorable  Daniel  Oliver,  1705— 173 2. 5 6 
Colonel  Thomas  Fitch,  1705— 1736. 5 
Sir  Charles  Hobby,  Knight,  1 705-1 71 4.® 

Governor  Samuel  Shute,  1716— 1723. 7 
Lieutenant-Governor  William  Dummer,  1716— 1761. 8 


(Reappointed) 

(Reappointed) 

(Reappointed) 

(Reappointed) 


(Appointed  10  Mar.  1704/5) 
(Appointed  10  Mar.  1704/ 5) 


4 Proc.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.}  lxvii.  63  ; Ford,  Some  Correspondence,  83—90,  92—93. 

5 Proc.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  lxvii.  645  6 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  1.  311. 

6 Proc.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  lxvii.  755  6 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  1.  412. 

7 Cotton  Mather,  Diary,  in  7 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  VIII.  375. 

8 Cotton  Mather,  India  Christiana,  1721,  names  the  Commissioners  in  1721  as  fFs., 
Samuel  Shute,  William  Dummer,  Samuel  Sewall,  Penn  Townsend,  Edward  Brom- 
field, Simeon  Stoddard,  Thomas  Fitch,  Thomas  Hutchinson,  Adam  Winthrop, 
Jonathan  Belcher,  Daniel  Oliver,  Increase  Mather,  Cotton  Mather  and  Nehemiah 
Walter. 


2 IO 


The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

Colonel  Adam  Winthrop,  1721-1743.9  Secretary  1724—1733;  Treasurer 
I724-I74I- 

Honorable  Thomas  Hutchinson,  1721— 173 9. 9 
Governor  Jonathan  Belcher,  1721-1757.9 

Commissioners  of  the  Nezv  England  Company  of  1649,  appointed  13  March 
1724.1  Nine  of  the  above  commissioners  and  the  following: 

Reverend  Benjamin  Colman,  D.D.,  1724— 1747. 2 

Reverend  Edward  Wigglesworth,  D.D.,  1724—1755.  [d.  1765;  res.  1755] 
Governor  Joseph  Talcott,  1724— 1741. 

Honorable  Samuel  Penhallow,  1724—1726. 

Honorable  Edward  Hutchinson,  1724— 175 2. 3 
Edmund  Knight,  Esquire,  1724. 

Reverend  Joseph  Sewall,  D.D.,  1726— 1769. 4 

Honorable  Anthony  Stoddard,  1733—1748  d Secretary  1733-1748. 
Lieutenant-Governor  Spencer  Phips,  1 734— 1 75 7. 4 

Lieutenant-Governor  Andrew  Oliver,  1734— 1774. 4 Treasurer  1741— 1774; 

Secretary  1748—1774. 

Reverend  Thomas  Foxcroft,  1747— 1769. 5 

Honorable  Thomas  Hubbard,  1748— 1775. 5 

President  Elisha  Williams,  1 750—  1 75 5. 6 

Reverend  Andrew  Eliot,  D.D.,  1750— 1775. 7 

Reverend  Jonathan  Mayhew,  D.D.,  1752— 1766. 7 

Lieutenant-Governor  Thomas  Cushing,  LL.D.,  1760— 1786. 8 

Honorable  Harrison  Gray,  1760— 1776. 8 

Honorable  William  Phillips,  1765— 178 5. 9 Treasurer  1774—1777,  1784- 
1 786. 

9 See  note  8 above;  C.  K.  Shipton,  Sibley’s  Harvard  Graduates , iv.  213— 214. 

1 Connecticut  Historical  Society,  v.  404.  Commission  dated  13  March  1724  names 
Samuel  Shute,  Edward  Bromfield,  Thomas  Fitch,  Jonathan  Belcher,  Adam  Win- 
throp, Thomas  Hutchinson,  Penn  Townsend,  Rev.  Cotton  Mather,  d.d.,  Joseph 
Talcott  (of  Conn.),  Samuel  Penhallow  (of  N.  H.),  Edward  Hutchinson,  Edmund 
Knight,  Rev.  Benjamin  Colman,  d.d.,  and  Rev.  Edward  Wigglesworth,  d.d. 

2 C.  K.  Shipton,  Sibley’s  Harvard  Graduates , iv.  126. 

3 Our  Publications , xvi.  575—577;  Lawrence  Shaw  Mayo,  The  Winthrop  Family , 
Boston,  1948,  146—150. 

4 Shipton,  op.  cit .,  IV.  385;  VII.  63,  388-389;  5 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  vil.  67. 

5 Shipton,  op.  cit.,  vn.  63,  388-389. 

6 Id.,  v.  596. 

7 4 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  iv.  415. 

8 Petition  from  Commissioners  of  Indian  Affairs  (Andrew  Oliver,  Thomas  Hub- 
bard, Harrison  Gray,  Thomas  Cushing)  to  investigate  selling  of  the  Indian  lands  at 
Stockbridge  to  the  whites,  in  Mass.  Archives,  33:  479. 

9 Minutes  of  the  New  England  Company  at  London  names  William  Phillips,  paid 


2 I I 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1 649 

Commissioners  of  the  New  England  Company  of  1649 , appointed  3 April 
177a1 

Governor  Matthew  Griswold,  1770—1786. 

Deacon  John  Barrett,  1770. 

Reverend  Charles  Chauncy,  D.D.,  1770—1785. 

Reverend  Samuel  Cooper,  D.D.,  1770—1783. 


Commissioners  of  the  New  England  Company  of  1649 , appointed  April, 
1 775  *2 

Honorable  Jonathan  Mason,  1775—1786. 

Isaac  Smith,  1775—1786.  Treasurer  1775-1784. 


New  England  Officers , 1650—1-774. 


Presidents  of  the  Commissioners  of 
the  United  Colonies , 1649—1685 : 

1649  Thomas  Dudley 

1650  Edward  Hopkins 

1651  Theophilus  Eaton,  1654,  1655 

1652  Simon  Bradstreet,  1653,  1657, 
1663 

1 65  3 John  Endecott,  1658 
1656  William  Bradford 

1659  J°hn  Winthrop,  Jr.,  1668, 
1669 

1660  Francis  Newman 

1661  Thomas  Prence,  1672 

1662  Daniel  Denison,  1663,  1664 
1664  Thomas  Danforth,  1675,  1679 
1667  William  Leete,  1673,  1678 
1670  Richard  Bellingham 

1677  Josiah  Winslow 


Secretaries: 

1650-1680 

1680-1699 

1699-1724 

1724-1733 

1733-1748 

1748-1774 

1774-1786 

T reasurers: 

1650-1680 

1680-1699 

1699-1724 

1 724-1 741 

1741-1774 

1774-1777 

1777-1784 

1784-1786 


Edward  Rawson 
William  Stoughton 
Samuel  Sewall 
Adam  Winthrop 
Anthony  Stoddard 
Andrew  Oliver 
(see  Treasurers) 


Edward  Rawson 
William  Stoughton 
Samuel  Sewall 
Adam  Winthrop 
Andrew  Oliver 
William  Phillips 
Isaac  Smith 
William  Phillips 


as  Treasurer,  1775—1777,  1784—1786.  Probably  news  of  the  appointment  of  Mr. 
Isaac  Smith  did  not  reach  him  until  1777,  due  to  the  interruptions  of  the  Revolution- 
ary War. 

1 Commissioners  named  to  fill  vacancies  in  New  England,  3 April  1770,  at  a meet- 
ing of  the  New  England  Company  at  London  on  that  date. 

2 Commissioners  named  to  fill  vacancies  in  New  England,  (25?)  April  1775,  at 
a meeting  of  the  New  England  Company  at  London  on  that  date  5 Mr.  Smith  is 
named  Treasurer  for  New  England,  and  was  paid  for  the  duties  of  that  office,  1777- 
1784,  as  per  accounts  of  the  Society  in  London. 


2 I 2 


The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 


English  Officers  oj  the  Nezv  England  Company  oj  1649 


President: 

1649-1661 

Governors : 

1662-1691 

1691-1696 

1696-1719 

1 7 1 9— 1 726 

1 726-1 728 

1728-1728 

1 728-1 746 

1746-1759 

1759-1761 

1761-1765 

1765-1772 

1772-1780 


Rt.  Hon.  William  Steele 


Hon.  Robert  Boyle 
Maj.  Robert  Thompson 
Sir  William  Ashurst 
Robert  Ashurst 
William  Thompson 
Sir  Nathaniel  Gould3 
Sir  Robert  Clarke,  Bart. 
Sir  Samuel  Clarke,  Bart. 
James  Lamb 
Benjamin  Avery,  LL.D. 
Jasper  Mauduit 
William  Bowden 


1780-1787 

T reasurers: 
1649-1659 
1659-1680 
1681-1696 
1696-1 702 
1702-1704 
1704-1729 

i729_i748 
1748-1765 
1 765—1 773 
1773-1791 

Clerk: 

165  5-1666 


Richard  Jackson 


Richard  Floyd 
Henry  Ashurst,  Esq. 
Sir  William  Ashurst 
Henry  Ashurst 
Joseph  Thomson 
John  Gunston 
Joseph  Williams 
Jasper  Mauduit 
Thomas  Wright 
Alexander  Champion, 
Sr. 

John  Hooper 


VII 

Members  oj  the  New  England  Company  Named  in  the  Act  oj 

Parliament 


1649—1661  William  Steel,  Esq. 
1649—1661  Herbert  Pelham , Esq. 


1649-1657 

1649-1660 

1649-1653 

1649-1661 

1649-1653 

1649-1661 

1649-1661 

1649-1654 

1649-1659 

1649-1659 

1649-1659 

1649-1659 

1649-1658 

1649-1655 


James  Sherley 
Abraham  Babington 
Robert  Houghton 
Richard  Hutchinson 
George  Dun 

Maj.  Robert  Thompson 
William  Molines 
John  Hodgson 
Edward  Parks 
Edward  Clud,  Esq. 
Richard  Floyd 
Thomas  Ayres 
John  Stone 

Gov.  Edward  Winslow 


President , 1649—1661  Chancellor  of 
Ireland. 

First  Treasurer  of  Harvard  College, 
1639-1649. 

Friend  of  the  Pilgrims;  died  1657. 
An  active  member. 

Inactive. 

Deputy -President.  Reappointed  1662. 
Inactive. 

President  1691  — 1696.  Reappomted. 
An  active  member. 

Inactive. 

Inactive. 

Inactive. 

Treasurer  1649—1659;  died  1659. 
An  active  member. 

Inactive. 

Governor  of  Plymouth  Colony;  d. 
1655. 


3 Elected  1 9 July  1728;  died  2 1 July  1728. 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1 649 


2 1 3 


Members  Elected  to  Fill  Vacancies  by  Death  or  Removal 


1653—1661  Thomas  Speed 

1653— 1661  George  Clerke 

1654— 1657  Gov.  Edward  Hof  kins 

1655— 1660  Richard  Young 

1656— 1661  Joshua  Woolnough 
1656—1661  Thomas  Bell 
1656—1658  Dr.  Edmund  Wilson 
1656-1660  Capt.  Mark  Coe 

1656— 1661  Erasmus  Smyth,  Esq. 

1657— 1660  Col.  William  Puckle 

1657— 1661  John  Rolfe 

1658- 1661  Henry  Ashurst,  Esq. 
1660— 1661  Francis  Warner,  Esq. 


Active  member.  Reappointed  1662. 
Active  member.  Reappointed  1662. 
Governor  of  Connecticut ; died  1657. 


Active  member. 
Active  member. 
Active  member. 
Active  member. 
Inactive. 

Active  member. 
Active  member. 
Active  member. 
Treasurer  1659- 
Active  member. 


Reap -pointed  1662. 
Reappointed  1662. 
Died  1658. 

Reappointed  1662. 

Reappointed  1662. 
1680.  Reappointed. 
Reappointed  1662. 


The  names  in  italics  had  lived  in  New  England.  See  4 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.y 

11.  281. 


VIII 

The  Eliot  Indian  Tracts.  Printed  by  the  New  England  Company 

of  1649 

[See  Justin  Winsor:  “The  New  England  Indians,”  Proc.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc .,  xxx. 
336—339,  and  George  Parker  Winship,  The  Eliot  Indian  Tracts  (Cambridge, 

1925)-] 

I.  1643.  New  England's  First  Fruits* 

II.  1647.  [J°hn  Wilson],  The  Day-Breaking  if  not  the  Sun-Rising  of  the 
Gospel  with  the  Indians  in  New- England.4 5 

III.  1648.  Thomas  Shepard,  The  Clear  Sun-Shine  of  the  Gospel  breaking 

forth  upon  the  Indians  of  N ew-England. 6 

IV.  1649.  Edward  Winslow,  The  Glorious  Progress  of  the  Gospel , Amongst 

the  Indians  of  New  England  manifested  by  three  letters .7 8 

V.  1651.  Henry  Whitfield,  T he  Light  Appearing  More  and  More  T owards 
the  Perfect  Day.s 

VI.  1652.  Henry  Whitfield,  Strength  out  of  Weakness .9 

4 Reprinted  in  1 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.}  1.  242-2505  Sabin. 

5 Reprinted  in  3 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.}  iv.  1-23  5 Sabin. 

6 Reprinted  in  3 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  IV.  25-67;  Sabin. 

7 Reprinted  in  3 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  iv.  69-98. 

8 Id.,  iv.  99-147. 

9 Id.,  iv.  149-196. 


2 14  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 


VII.  1653. 
VIII.  1655. 

IX.  1659. 


X.  1660. 


XI.  1671. 


John  Eliot  and  Thomas  Mayhew,  Tears  oj  Repentence } 

John  Eliot,  A Late  and  Further  Manijestation  oj  the  Progress  oj 
the  Gospel  amongst  the  Indians  in  N ew-England.1 2 
John  Eliot,  A jurther  Accompt  oj  the  Progresse  oj  the  Gospel 
amongst  the  Indians  in  N ew- England  and  oj  the  means  used 
ejjectually  to  advance  the  same.  Set  jorth  in  certain  Letters  jrom 
thence  declaring  a -purpose  oj  Printing  the  Scriptures  in  the  In- 
dian Tongue , into  which  they  are  already  Translated. 3 4 
John  Eliot,  A jurther  Account  oj  the  progresse  oj  the  Gospel  . . . 
being  A Relation  oj  the  Conjessions  made  by  several  Indians. 
Sent  over  to  the  Corporation , 5 July  1659.* 

John  Eliot,  A Briej  Narrative  oj  the  progress  oj  the  Gospel  among 
the  Indians  in  New  England .5 


IX 


Some  of  the  More  Important  Letters  of  John  Eliot  which  are  in  Print 


1.  1646  Nov.  13. 

2.  1647  Sep.  24. 

3.  1647/8  Feb.  2. 

4.  1649  July  8. 

5.  1649  Nov.  13. 

6.  1649  Dec.  29. 

7.  1650  Apr.  18. 

8.  1650  Oct.  21. 


Written  to: 
Edward  Winslow 
Thomas  Shepard 
Edward  Winslow 
Henry  Whitfield 
Edward  Winslow 
Henry  Whitfield 
Henry  Whitfield 
Henry  Whitfield 


Sources: 

3 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  iv.  87—88. 

3 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  iv.  49—59. 

3 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  iv.  89—92. 

3 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  iv.  1 19—122. 
3 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  iv.  79—86. 

3 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  iv.  122— 133. 
3 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  iv.  1 3 3—1 3 5 . 
3 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  iv.  135— 145. 


1 Id.,  iv.  197—260. 

2 Id.,  iv.  261—287. 

3 Contains  letters  from  the  New  England  Commissioners,  22  September  1658;  from 
Eliot,  10  December  1658  and  28  December  16585  and  from  John  Endecott,  28 
December  1658}  Day  of  Fasting  at  Natick,  15  November  16585  and  Pierson’s 
Some  Helps  for  the  Indians , &c. 

4 Mr.  Winship  notes  still  another  tract  by  John  Eliot,  A brief  Tract  of  the  present 
state  of  the  Indian  work,  published  in  1669.  It  is  not  known  that  any  copy  of  this 
tract  exists,  though  reference  is  made  in  the  Company’s  records  to  its  being  printed. 

5 Some  of  these  Eliot  Tracts  were  used  in  compiling  an  appendix  on  the  “Gospel’s 
Good  Successe  in  New  England,”  attached  to  Of  the  Conversion  of  5900  East  In- 
dians (London,  1650)  [cf.  Winsor,  3395a  copy  to  be  found  in  the  Lenox  Library]. 
As  noted  above,  seven  of  these  tracts  are  to  be  found  in  3 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  IV, 
and  another  in  1 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  15  five  of  the  tracts  may  be  found  in  Sabin'’ s 
Reprints,  1865,  while  still  another  was  privately  reprinted  at  Boston  in  1868.  Mr. 
Winship  suggests  that  the  two  historical  works  of  Gookin  logically  should  belong  to 
this  series  of  tracts. 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1 649  2 1 5 

9- 

1650  ca. 

Hugh  Peter 

Conversion  oj  5900  East  Indians. 

10. 

165  1 Apr.  28. 

Henry  Whitfield 

3 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  iv.  165—168. 

1 1. 

1651  Oct. 

Henry  Whitfield 

3 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  iv.  169—175. 

12. 

1651  Oct.  20. 

Edward  Winslow 

N . E.  Hist. -Gen.  Reg.,  xxxvi.  291—294. 

13- 

1652  Dec.  6. 

William  Steele 

N . E.  Hist. -Gen.  Reg.,  xxxvi.  294—297. 

14. 

1653  Mar.  18. 

Thomas  Thorowgood  J ewes  in  America,  1660. 

15- 

1654  Aug.  27. 

Thomas  Thorowgood  J ewes  in  America,  1660. 

16. 

1654  Aug.  29. 

Jonathan  Hanmer 

T.  N.  Vail  & Wilberforce  Eames,  1915. 

17- 

1655  ca. 

Jonathan  Hanmer 

Bulletin,  J.  Rylands  Library,  1919. 

18. 

1655  ca. 

Jonathan  Hanmer 

Bulletin,  J.  Rylands  Library,  1919. 

19. 

1655  ca. 

Jonathan  Hanmer 

Bulletin,  J.  Rylands  Library , 1919. 

20. 

1655  Aug.  16. 

Thomas  Thorowgood  J ewes  in  America,  1660. 

21. 

1656  Oct.  16. 

Richard  Baxter 

Powicke,  19— 20. 6 

22. 

1657  June  4- 

Humphrey  Atherton 

1 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  11.  9. 

23- 

1657  Oct.  7. 

Richard  Baxter 

Powicke,  22—25. 

24. 

1657  Oct.  8. 

Richard  Floyd 

Ford,  1—2;  Proc.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  xvii. 

246. 

25. 

1658  Dec.  10. 

Richard  Floyd 

Eliot  Indian  Tract  VIII. 

26. 

1658  Dec.  28. 

Corporation 

Eliot  Indian  Tract  VIII. 

27. 

1659  July  5. 

Richard  Floyd 

Eliot  Indian  Tract  IX. 

28. 

1661  Mar.  28. 

John  Endecott 

Proc.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  in.  3 1 2—3  13. 

29. 

1663  July  6. 

Richard  Baxter 

Reliquiae  Baxterianae , 293—297. 

30- 

1 664  Aug.  26. 

Robert  Boyle 

Birch,  Life  oj  Boyle  ( 1 744) , 548. 

3i- 

1665  Aug.  25. 

Commissioners 

Col.  Records  oj  Conn.,  in.  484. 

32. 

1667  Dec.  10. 

Richard  Baxter 

Powicke,  28—3  1. 

33* 

1667/8  Jan.  22. 

Richard  Baxter 

Powicke,  3 1—32. 

34- 

1668  June  15. 

Richard  Baxter 

Powicke,  35—38. 

35- 

1668  Oct.  28. 

Richard  Baxter 

Powicke,  38—41. 

36. 

1669  June  20. 

Richard  Baxter 

Powicke,  49—55. 

37- 

1669  Sept.  6. 

Robert  Boyle 

Ford,  Some  Correspondence,  27—30. 

38. 

1 670  Sep.  20. 

Robert  Boyle 

1 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  111.  177-178; 

Birch,  Lije  oj  Boyle,  430—432;  Eliot 
Indian  Tract  XI. 

39- 

1670  Nov.  30. 

Henry  Ashurst 

Ford,  37—39;  Proc.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc., 

xvii.  246-247. 

40. 

1671  June  27. 

Richard  Baxter 

Powicke,  62—63. 

41. 

1671  Sep.  4. 

Commissioners 

Ford,  43-47;  Proc.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc., 

xvii.  247—249. 

42. 

1671  Oct.  1. 

Henry  Ashurst 

Ford,  49-51;  Proc.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc., 

xvii.  249-250. 

6 F.  J.  Powicke,  Some  Unpublished  Correspondence  of  the  Reverend  Richard  Baxter 
and  the  Reverend  John  Eliot , the  Apostle  of  the  Indians , 1656—1682  (Manchester, 
England,  1931),  66,  from  Bulletin  of  the  John  Rylands  Library,  July,  1931. 


2 1 6 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

43.  1671  Dec.  1. 

Robert  Boyle 

Ford,  51-52;  Proc.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc., 
xvii.  251. 

44.  1675  July  24. 

John  Winthrop,  Jr. 

5 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  1.  424—426. 

45.  1675  Dec.  17. 

Robert  Boyle 

Ford,  52-55;  Proc.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc., 
xvii.  251-252. 

46.  1677  Oct.  23. 

Robert  Boyle 

Birch,  432-435  ; 1 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc., 
hi.  178-179. 

47.  1680  Nov.  4. 

Robert  Boyle 

Birch,  435-437;  1 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc., 
hi.  179-180. 

48.  1681  June  1 7. 

Robert  Boyle 

Ford,  65-67;  Proc.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc., 
xvii.  253. 

49.  1682  May  30. 

Richard  Baxter 

Powicke,  65—66. 

50.  1682/3  Mar.  15. 

Robert  Boyle 

Birch,  437-439;  1 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc., 
hi.  1 81. 

5 1.  1683  June  21. 

Robert  Boyle 

Birch,  43 9-440 ; 1 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc., 
hi.  182. 

52.  1683  Nov.  27. 

Robert  Boyle 

Birch,  440-441 ; 1 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc., 
hi.  182-183. 

53.  1684  Apr.  22. 

Robert  Boyle 

Birch,  442-447;  1 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc., 
hi.  183-186. 

54.  1686  Aug.  29. 

Robert  Boyle 

Birch,  447-448 ; 1 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc., 
hi.  187. 

55.  1688  July  7. 

Robert  Boyle 

Birch,  448—449;  1 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc., 
hi.  187-188. 

X 

Books  and  Pamphlets  Printed  in  the  Indian  Language  for  the  New 

England  Company  1649' 

1664.  Richard  Baxter,  see  Eliot’s  translations  below,  12  and  22. 

1665.  Lewis  Bayly,  see  Eliot’s  translations  13  and  21. 

1691.  John  Cotton,  see  Rawson’s  translations  36  and  38. 

1685.  John  Cotton,  Jr.,  see  Eliot’s  Bible , 19  below,  which  John  Cotton, 
Jr.,  edited  and  amended. 

1.  1698.  Samuel  Danforth,  Greatest  Sinners  called  and  encouraged  to  come 
to  Christ , &c.  (Five  sermons  by  Increase  Mather,  translated  by 
Samuel  Danforth.)  Boston. 


7 Twenty-three  printed  at  Cambridge,  Massachusetts}  thirteen  printed  at  Boston, 
Massachusetts;  and  two  printed  at  London,  England.  See  Trumbull’s  list  in  Proc. 
Am.  Antiq.  Soc.,  lxi.  45-62  and  Winsor’s  list  in  Proc.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  xxx.  327- 
359.  These  societies  possess  by  far  the  largest  collections  of  these  imprints.  Eliot’s 
publications  3 to  23  were  published  in  Cambridge,  24  was  published  at  Boston. 


1948]  The  New  England  Company  of  1649  217 


2. 1710. 


1707. 
3-  1653- 

4.  1655. 

5.  1658. 

6.  1661. 

7.  1661. 

8.  1662. 

9.  1663. 

10.  1663. 

11.  1663. 

12.  1664. 

13.  1665. 


14.  1666. 

15.  1669. 

16.  1671. 

17.  1672. 

18.  1680. 

19.  1685. 


20.  1685. 

21.  1685. 

22.  1688. 

23.  1689. 


24.  1720. 


Samuel  Danforth,  A few  words  addressed  to  the  poor  condemned 
murderers  Josiah  and  Josef h , in  their  own  languages;  at  Bristol , 
12  October  iyoy,  on  the  day  when  their  sentence  was  executed. 
(Appended  to  a sermon  by  Mr.  Danforth  entitled:  The  Woful 
Effect  of  Drunkenness.')  Boston. 

Godefridus  Dellius,  translator  of  No.  33. 

John  Eliot,  A Catechism.  Cambridge. 

John  Eliot,  The  Book  of  Genesis  and  the  Gospel  of  Matthew. 

John  Eliot,  Psalms  in  Metre.  Cambridge. 

John  Eliot,  The  New  Testament  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ.  Cambridge. 

John  Eliot,  A Christian  Covenanting  Confession.  Cambridge. 

John  Eliot,  A Catechism.  (2nd  edition.)  Cambridge. 

John  Eliot,  The  Whole  Bible , both  Old  T estament  and  also  the 
New  T estament.  Cambridge. 

John  Eliot,  The  Psalms  of  David  in  Metre.  (2nd  edition.) 

John  Eliot,  The  Psalter.  Cambridge. 

John  Eliot,  Baxter’s  Call  to  the  Unconverted.  Cambridge. 

John  Eliot,  Godly  Living:  Directs  a Christian  how  he  may  live  to 
■please  God.  (Eliot’s  abridged  translation  of  Lewis  Bayly’s  Prac- 
tice of  Piety.)  Cambridge. 

John  Eliot,  The  Indian  Grammar  Begun.9,  Cambridge. 

John  Eliot,  The  Indian  Primer , or  the  way  of  Training  up  our  Youth 
of  India  in  the  Knowledge  of  God.  Cambridge. 

John  Eliot,  Indian  Dialogues , For  their  Instruction  in  the  great 
service  of  Christ.  Cambridge. 

John  Eliot,  The  Logick  Primer.  Some  Logical  Notions  to  initiate 
the  Indians  in  the  Knowledge  of  the  Rule  of  Reason.  . . . Cam- 
bridge. 

John  Eliot,  The  Psalms  in  Metre.  (3rd  edition.)  Cambridge. 

John  Eliot,  The  Whole  Bible , both  Old  Testament  and  also  the 
New  T estament.  (2nd  edition  amended  and  improved  by  John 
Cotton,  Jr.)  Cambridge. 

John  Eliot,  The  Indian  Primer.  (2nd  edition.)  Cambridge. 

John  Eliot,  Godly  Living , &c.  (2nd  edition  of  Bayly’s  Practice  of 
Piety.)  Cambridge. 

John  Eliot,  Baxter’s  Calf  &c.  (2nd  edition.)  Cambridge. 

John  Eliot,  Thomas  Shepard’s  Sincere  Convert  and  Sound  Believer 
(translated  by  Mr.  Eliot  in  1664  and  amended  and  edited  by 
Grindal  Rawson  in  1689).  Cambridge. 

John  Eliot,  Indian  Primer , &c.  (3rd  edition,  amended  by  Grindal 
Rawson.)  Boston. 


8 Reprinted  in  2 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  ix.  223-312. 


2 I 8 


25.  1700. 

26.  1705. 


27.  1706. 

1707. 

28.  1714. 

29.  1714. 

30.  1721. 
1698. 

31.  1707. 

32.  1709. 

33-  1707- 


34. 1658. 
35. 1689. 

36.  1691. 

37.  1699. 

38.  1720. 


39-  i634- 

40.  1643. 


The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

Cotton  Mather,  An  Epistle  to  the  Christian  Indians.  Boston. 

Cotton  Mather,  The  Hatchets , to  hew  down  the  Tree  of  Sin , which 
bears  the  Fruit  of  Death , or  The  Laws , by  which  the  Magistrates 
are  to  'punish  Offenders , among  the  Indians , as  well  as  among  the 
English.  Boston. 

Cotton  Mather,  An  Epistle  to  the  Christian  Indians.  (2nd  edition.) 
Boston. 

Cotton  Mather,  see  Mayhew’s  translation  31. 

Cotton  Mather,  Family  Religion  Excited , and  Assisted.  Boston. 

Cotton  Mather,  A Monitor  for  Communicants.  Boston. 

Cotton  Mather,  India  Christiana.  Boston. 

Increase  Mather,  Five  Sermons , translated  by  Danforth,  No.  1 
above. 

Experience  Mayhew,  Translation  of  Cotton  Mather’s  The  Day 
which  the  Lord  hath  made.  Boston. 

Experience  Mayhew,  T he  Massachusetts  Psalter:  or , Psalms  of  David 
With  the  Gospel  According  to  John .9  Boston. 

Cotton  Mather,  Another  Tongue  brought  in , to  Confess  the  Great 
Saviour  of  the  World.  (In  four  languages:  Iroquois,  Latin,  English 
and  Dutch.)  Boston. 

Abraham  Pierson,  Some  Helps  for  the  Indians , Sic.1  (In  the  Quini- 
piac  dialect.) 

Grindal  Rawson,  Amended  and  edited  edition  of  Eliot’s  translation 
of  Shepard’s  Sincere  Convert  and  Sound  Believer.  See  Eliot’s  No. 
23.  Cambridge. 

Grindal  Rawson,  [John  Cotton’s]  Spiritual  Milk  for  Babes. 
Cambridge. 

Grindal  Rawson,  A Confession  of  Faith  Owned  & consented  unto 
by  the  Elders  and  Messengers  of  the  Church  Assembled  at  Boston 
in  N ew-England , 12  May  1680.  Boston. 

Grindal  Rawson,  T he  Indian  Primer  of  the  First  Book  and  Milk  for 
Babes.  (3rd  edition  of  Eliot’s  Indian  Primer , amended  by  Grin- 
dal Rawson,  and  2nd  edition  of  Cotton’s  Milk  for  Babes , trans- 
lated by  Grindal  Rawson.)  Boston. 

William  Wood,  New  England's  Prospect  (contains  several  pages  of 
Indian  vocabulary).  London. 

Roger  Williams,  A Key  into  the  Language  of  America .2  London. 


9 This  work  ranks  with  Cotton’s  amended  translation  of  Eliot’s  Bible  as  one  of  the 
best  translations  in  the  Indian  language. 

1 Reprinted  in  Eliot  Indian  Tracts,  No.  IX.  q.v. 

2 Reprinted  in  1 Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  in.  203-239;  V.  80—106. 


February  Meeting,  1949 

A STATED  Meeting  of  the  Society  was  held  at  the  Club 
of  Odd  Volumes,  No.  77  Mount  Vernon  Street,  Boston, 
L on  Thursday,  24  February  1949,  at  three  o’clock  in  the 
afternoon,  the  President,  Augustus  Peabody  Loring,  Jr.,  in 
the  chair. 

The  records  of  the  last  Stated  Meeting  were  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

The  Corresponding  Secretary  reported  the  receipt  of  letters 
from  Mr.  Henry  TIornblower,  II,  and  Mr.  Waldron 
Phoenix  Belknap,  Jr.  accepting  election  to  Resident  Mem- 
bership, and  from  Mr.  Carl  Bridenbaugh  accepting  election 
to  Corresponding  Membership  in  the  Society. 

The  President  reported  the  death  on  2 January  1949  of 
Eldon  Revare  James,  an  Associate  Member ; that  on  18  Janu- 
ary 1949  of  Allston  Burr,  a Resident  Member,  and  that  on 
19  February  1949  of  Marcus  Wilson  Jernegan,  a Corre- 
sponding Member  of  the  Society. 

Mr.  Michael  J.  Walsh  read  a paper  entitled  “Matt  B.  Jones 
and  his  Collection  of  Americana.” 

The  Editor  communicated  by  title  the  following  paper  by 
Professor  G.  H.  Turnbull: 


George  Stirk,  Philosopher  by  Fire 

( 162&-1665) 

GEORGE  STIRK  was  born  in  Bermuda,  the  son  of  the  Reverend 
- George  Stirk,1  who  was  Church  of  England  minister  to  the 
Southampton  Tribe  there,  and  who  died  in  1637.  His  name  is 
given  variously  as  Stirk,  Stirke,  Stirky,  Sterky,  Starkey  and  Starkie.  Fer- 


1 George  L.  Kittredge,  “George  Stirk,  Minister,”  Publications  of  the  Colonial  So- 
ciety of  Massachusetts , xm.  16—59;  this  article  will  hereafter  be  referred  to  as 
Kittredge  1.  There  are  many  references  to  the  younger  Stirk  in  Professor  Kitt- 
redge’s  article  on  Dr.  Robert  Child  the  Remonstrant  (hereafter  referred  to  as 
Kittredge  11),  1—146,  of  our  Publications.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  Professor  Kitt- 
redge died  before  being  able  to  fulfill  his  promise  (1.  52,  II.  146)  of  writing  a paper 
on  George  Stirk  the  younger. 


220 


The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [feb. 

guson2  says  Stirk  seems  to  have  been  really  his  name,  but  Robert  Child, 
who  knew  him  well,  informed  Samuel  Hartlib  in  1650  (as  recorded  in 
the  latter’s  Efhemerides  for  that  year)  that  he  “writes  his  name  Stirke” ; 
Child  may  only  have  meant  this  form  rather  than  Starkey,  without  in- 
sisting on  the  “e,”  which  indeed  may  be  Hartlib’s  own  writing  of  the  name 
as  he  had  heard  it  from  Child’s  own  mouth.  His  father’s  name,  too,  is 
spelled  Stirke  in  contemporary  documents,  though  Professor  Kittredge 
uses  the  form  Stirk,  which  indeed  is  that  used  by  the  Reverend  George 
Stirk  himself.3 

The  younger  Stirk  seems  to  have  been  born  in  1628.  In  his  Efhemerides 
for  16504  Hartlib  gives  Stirk’s  age  then  variously  as  21,  22  and  23,  before 
meeting  him;  but,  after  meeting  him  for  the  first  time  on  1 1 December 
of  that  year,  he  records,  among  other  details,  from  Child  and  Stirk’s 
“owne  mouth,”  his  age  as  “but  of  22  y [ears].” 5 

In  1639  Stirk  was  recommended  by  the  Reverend  Patrick  Copland, 
of  Warwick’s  Tribe,  to  the  care  of  John  Winthrop  the  elder  and  went 
to  Harvard  College  for  his  education,  instead  of  going  to  England.  In 
1644,  before  he  graduated,  he  began  to  study  chemistry6  in  his  spare  time 
and  later,  in  1648,  he  wrote  to  borrow  books  on  the  subject  and  chemical 
apparatus  from  John  Winthrop  the  younger.7  He  graduated  Bachelor  of 
Arts  at  Harvard  College  in  1646  and,  according  to  Kittredge,8  was 
practising  medicine  at  Boston  from  1647  t0  1650.  He  was  certainly  prac- 
tising medicine  there  in  1648,  for  William  White,  in  a letter  to  Robert 
Child  of  8 May  1649,  found  among  Hartlib’s  papers,  after  describing 
what  he  had  had  to  endure  and  how  ill  he  had  been  treated  by  people 
like  Mr.  Robert  Leader  and  his  wife,  added  that  twelve  weeks  before  he 
left  Boston  for  the  Bermudas,  which  was  apparently  in  July  1648, 9 Stirk, 

2 John  Ferguson,  Bibliotheca  Chemica , 2 vols.  (Glasgow,  1906),  11.  403. 

3 As  in  a letter  by  him,  of  which  there  is  a photograph  between  pages  47  and  49  of 
Kittredge  1. 

4 For  the  use  of  which  and  of  other  documents  from  Samuel  Hartlib’s  papers  I am 
indebted  to  their  owner,  Lord  Delamere. 

5 The  information  given  in  the  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  that  Stirk  was 
born  perhaps  in  1606  in  Leicestershire,  got  a medical  degree  and  went  to  America, 
seems  to  be  quite  erroneous. 

6 On  pages  6-7  of  A smart  scourge , 1665,  but  signed  (page  8)  by  Stirk  on  9 De- 
cember 1664,  he  says:  “as  for  my  Chemical  Studies,  this  is  the  one  and  twentieth 
year  therein.” 

7 Winthrop  Papers,  V,  1645-1649,  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  (Boston,  1947),  241-242.  The 
younger  Winthrop  may  have  influenced  Stirk  towards  the  study  of  chemistry. 

8 Kittredge  I.  1 6. 

9 Winthrop  Papers , V.  235—236  and  239—240. 


22  I 


1949]  George  Stirk,  Philosopher  by  Fire 

who  had  begun  to  practise  “physick”  at  Boston,  “had  such  practise 
that  he  tooke  me  a great  house  and  gave  me  5s  a daye  . . . and  there  I 
shewed  such  works  there  that  gentle  and  symple  saide  that  I had  beene 
wronged  dyvers  ways.”  In  A smart  scourge , published  in  1665,  but  written 
in  1664/  Stirk  says:1 2  “Of  my  publick  profession  of  the  Art  of  Medicine, 
this  is  the  seventeenth  year.”  In  that  book  and  in  his  Epistolar  Discourse 
(1665),  he  styles  himself  M.D.;  but  it  is  not  known  where  he  obtained 
that  degree,  nor  when.3 

The  younger  Stirk’s  mother  was  the  daughter  of  Stephen  Painter,4 
councillor  for  the  Southampton  Tribe  and  factor  or  agent  in  the  Bermu- 
das for  Robert  Rich,  second  Earl  of  Warwick.  A George  Stirk  is  men- 
tioned5 as  “hir  sonne”  in  a petition  of  20  May  1650,  from  Elizabeth 
Stoughton,  of  Dorchester,  Massachusetts,  widow  of  Israel  Stoughton, 
who  died  in  1644,6  and  Sibley  concludes7  that,  if  this  “be  the  graduate,  it 
is  obvious,  though  not  sustained  by  any  known  record,  that  Israel  Stough- 
ton . . . became  a widower,  and  married  the  widow  of  the  Reverend 
George  Stirk.”  But  it  is  possible  that  George  Stirk’s  widow  was  already 
dead  by  the  summer  of  1650,  if  not  earlier.8  Now  the  younger  Stirk  was 
certainly  married  by  1652,  for  John  Dury  remembered  his  “service”  to 
Stirk’s  wife  in  a letter  to  Hartlib  of  14  May  of  that  year.  Moreover,  in  his 
first  entry  about  Stirk  in  his  Efhemerides  for  1650,  written  between  13/23 
March  and  9 April,  Hartlib  recorded  the  information  from  Robert  Lead- 
er that  Stirk  was  “lately  married  to  one  Stoughton’s  daughter9  there,”  i.e., 
in  New  England.  It  is  more  reasonable,  therefore,  to  suppose  that  he  was 
Elizabeth  and  Israel  Stoughton’s  son-in-law,  rather  than  “sonne,”  and 

1 See  note  6.  2 Page  7. 

3 Stirk  did  not  use  the  title  in  any  of  his  earlier  publications but,  as  we  shall  see, 

Benjamin  Worsley  referred  to  him  as  “Dr.  Sterky”  in  November  1650,  and  Stirk’s 
friend,  Astell,  in  the  preface  to  his  edition,  1675,  °f  Stirk’s  Liquor  Alchahest , styles 
him  “Dr.” 

4 Winthrop  Papers,  v.  98,  n.  1. 

5 Ferguson,  op.  cit.,  11.  404,  quoting  from  John  L.  Sibley,  Biographical  Sketches  of 
Graduates  of  Harvard  University , I (Cambridge,  1873),  1 31— 137. 

6 Or  possibly  early  in  1645,  because,  according  to  the  D.N.B. , he  came  to  England 
towards  the  end  of  1644,  was  appointed  lieutenant  colonel  in  the  parliamentary 
army  and  died  soon  afterwards  at  Lincoln.  His  son,  William,  was  at  New  College, 
Oxford,  from  1652  until  after  the  Restoration. 

7 Ferguson,  op.  cit.,  11.  404,  n.  1,  quoting  Sibley. 

8 Kittredge  1.  54. 

9 Her  name  is  given  as  Susanna  by  W.  R.  Parker  in  the  introduction  to  his  edition 
of  The  Dignity  of  Kingship  asserted,  Facsimile  Text  Society,  Publication  No.  54 
(1942),  xviii. 


2 2 2 


The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [feb. 

that  Sibley’s  conjecture  is  wrong.  In  a later  letter  to  Hartlib,  of  29  May 
1652,  Dury  referred  to  Stirk’s  “family”;  but  there  is  no  further  evidence 
of  what  this  comprised  at  that  time. 

Before  he  left  New  England,  Stirk  became  Master  of  Arts  at  Harvard 
College.1  Information  recorded  in  Hartlib’s  Efhemerides  confirms  this,2 
adding  that  he  “is  of  a most  rare  and  incomparable  universall  witt,”  “pre- 
pares his  owne  Physick  and  hath  done  a number  of  most  strange  and  des- 
perate cures,  as  of  the  dropsy,  dead  palsy  and  others,”  and  is  “also  very 
chymicall.”  Robert  Child  told  Hartlib  that  Stirk,  whom  he  had  known  in 
New  England,  was  “famous  already”  for  his  cures  and  was  a Presby- 
terian3 and  of  Scots  parents,  born  in  the  Bermudas.  After  his  first  meeting 
with  Stirk,  Hartlib  recorded  among  other  things,  from  Dr.  Child  and 
Stirk’s  “owne  mouth,”  that  Stirk  had  been  confined  for  two  years  in  New 
England  on  suspicion  of  being  “a  Spie  or  Jesuit,”4  but  afterwards  practised 
physic  there  “with  great  successe  as  hee  still  undertakes  for  feavers,  stone, 
falling  sickness,  dropsy,”  that  he  had  lacked  mainly  glasshouses  in  New 
England  and  had  spent  more  than  £500  on  “natural  and  chymical  ex- 
periments.” 

Child  also  told  Hartlib  that  Stirk  had  “a  vast  stupendous  memory” 
and  was  an  excellent  Hebrew  and  Greek  scholar.  Stirk  himself  in  his 
writings  alludes  several  times  to  his  education.  In  one  place5  he  says  of 
his  adversaries:  “Are  they  Physicians  by  profession?  so  am  I,  educated  in 
the  schools  as  well  as  they,  graduated  as  well  as  they,  nor  was  my  time 
idly  spent,  but  in  the  Tongues  and  course  of  Philosophy  usually  taught,  in 
Logick  and  other  Arts  read  in  the  Schools.  ...  For  the  vulgar  Logick 
and  Philosophy,  I was  altogether  educated  in  it,  though  never  satisfied 
with  it;  at  length  Aristotles  Logick  I exchanged  for  that  of  Ramus,  and 
found  myself  as  empty  as  before;  and  for  authors  in  medicine,  Fernelius 
and  Sennertus  were  those  I most  chiefly  applyed  myself  to,  and  Galen, 
Fucksius,  Ayicen,  and  others  I read,  and  with  diligence  noted,  what  I 

1 Ferguson,  op.  cit .,  11.  404,  quoting  Sibley. 

2 Another  entry  in  the  Efhemerides  says  Stirk  “is  a Mr  of  Art  in  N[ew]  E[ngland] 
and  therefjore]  in  Old  Efngland]  also  enjoying  the  same  Priviledges.” 

3 This  does  not  tally  with  his  father  being  a minister  of  the  Church  of  England;  yet 
Child  repeated  the  statement  to  Hartlib  in  1651.  Kittredge  (1.  22),  however,  says 
that  Stirk’s  father  was  a “high  Calvinist,”  but  was  nevertheless,  while  minister  in 
Bermuda,  “under  no  suspicion  of  nonconformity.” 

4 There  seems  to  be  no  further  evidence  on  this  matter,  and  it  is  difficult  to  fit  this 
period  of  two  years’  confinement  into  the  known  history  of  Stirk’s  life  between  x 644 
and  1650. 

5 Natures  Explication , Epistle  to  the  Reader. 


1949]  George  Stirk,  Philosopher  by  Fire  223 

could  apprehend  useful,  and  accounted  this  practical  knowledge  a great 
treasure,  till  practical  experience  taught  me,  that  what  I had  learned  was 
of  no  value,  and  then  was  I to  seek  for  a new  path,  in  which  I might  walk 
with  greater  certainty,  and  by  God’s  blessing,  by  the  tutorage  of  the  fire, 
I attained  true  medicines  taught  obscurely  by  Paracelsus,  but  only  ex- 
plained by  labour  and  diligence  in  the  Art  of  Pyrotechny.”  Elsewhere0 
he  explains  that  his  first  suspicion  of  the  complete  rottenness  of  the  foun- 
dations of  the  current  Philosophy  was  occasioned  by  a disputation  on  the 
possibility  of  making  gold  potable,  his  studies  of  the  subject  making  him 
see  the  rottenness  of  both  Logic  and  Philosophy;  and  he  goes  on:  “now  I 
apprehended  (before  years  and  titles  had  engaged  me)  that  besides  what 
I knew  in  Tongues  my  skill  in  Logick  and  Philosophy  was  not  worth 
contemning,  yet  nothing  was  in  my  eyes  more  vile.  I therefore  rejected 
Aristotle  and  all  his  fictions,  against  whose  fallacious  shew  I wrote  with 
a pen  dipt  in  salt  and  vinegar,  yet  without  gall,  a Treatise  called  Organum 
novinn  Philosophiae  . . . then  I perused  some  Chymical  Authors.”  In  a later 
work'  he  writes  of  being  born  and  bred  generously,  and  educated  from 
his  youth  in  learning,  of  his  chemical  studies  and  of  his  public  profession 
of  the  art  of  medicine,  “in  which  art  in  particular,  as  of  Learning  in  Gen- 
eral, I have  had  as  much  Academical  honour,  as  by  the  conferring  of  de- 
grees, Students  and  Practitioners  are  capable  of.” 

Stirk  was  probably  drawing  on  his  own  earlier  experience  and  knowl- 
edge when  he  told  Hartlib  of  the  “hugely  great”  silk-spider  of  the  Ber- 
mudas, that  spins  a strong  web  between  tree  and  tree,  making  “most  ex- 
cellent silke  in  great  abundance,”  far  better  than  silkworms,  and  that 
might  be  kept  in  England,  and  of  the  excellent  oranges  and  lemons  grown 
there,  far  better  than  “any  in  Spain,”  as  the  Spanish  Ambassador  confessed 
after  “entertainment  with  them  by  the  late  E[arl]  of  Arundel.”8 

The  account  of  Stirk  in  the  Dictionary  oj  National  Biography  says  that 
he  returned  to  England  in  1646.  This  is  quite  erroneous,  for  Stirk  does 
not  seem  to  have  been  in  England  before,  and  he  did  not  arrive  here  un- 
til 1650.  Kittredge  conjectures9  that  he  came  in  1651  with  his  sister  and 
his  grandfather,  Stephen  Painter,  but  elsewhere1  he  says  it  was  in  1650 

6 Ibid.,  35-38. 

7 A smart  scourge , 6—7.  Cf.  what  Astell  wrote  of  him  in  the  preface  to  his  edition 
of  Stirk’s  Liquor  Alchahest : “That  his  acquirements  were  great,  is  not  unknown  to 
the  world,  especially  to  those  wrho  had  any  intimate  familiarity  with  him,  his  writ- 
ings testifie  his  ability  in  the  Philosophy,  or  learning  of  the  schools,  as  well  as  in 
that  of  Nature,  his  discoveries  having  truly  intituled  him  Philosophus  per  Ignem.” 

8 Probably  Thomas  Howard,  second  Earl.  1586-1646. 

9 Kittredge  I.  16,  55,  and  n.  2 on  55.  1 Kittredge  11.  101  and  n.  6 there. 


224  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [feb. 

or  1651,  probably  in  the  latter  part  of  1650,  leaving  Boston  some  time 
after  6 August  1650.  The  matter  is  now  settled  for  us  by  entries  in  Hart- 
lib’s  Efhemerides  for  1650,  where  it  is  recorded  that  on  29  November 
Benjamin  Worsley  brought  Hartlib  “the  first  news  of  young  Dr.  Sterky 
come  hither  out  of  N [ew]  E [ngland] ,”  and  that  on  1 1 December  Hart- 
lib  met  Stirk  for  the  first  time  on  the  Exchange.  In  an  earlier  entry  for 
that  year,  made  between  13/23  March  and  9 April,  Hartlib  records  that 
Stirk  should  have  come  over  in  the  company  of  Mr.  (Richard)  Leader, 
his  “intimate  friend.”2 

Stirk  appears  to  have  lived  in  England  from  his  arrival  in  November 
1650  until  his  death  in  1665.  Something  has  hitherto  been  known  con- 
cerning this  period  of  his  life;  but  Hartlib’s  papers,  now  available,  pro- 
vide much  new  and  valuable  additional  information  for  the  first  ten  years 
or  so.  In  the  following  account  of  him  and  of  his  activities  during  this 
period  the  source  drawn  upon,  except  where  otherwise  stated,  has  been 
these  papers;  and  in  particular,  the  journal  labelled  Efhemerides  which 
Hartlib  kept,  and  various  letters  which  came  into  his  hands. 

Stirk  experimented  much  with  the  transmutation  of  metals.  According 
to  the  Efhemerides  for  1651,  he  had  already  made,  in  America,  more 
than  fifteen  hundred  experiments  with  antimony,  having  got  from  a 
jilius  Hermctis  in  New  England,  who  had  the  elixir,  the  hints  and  some  of 
the  gold  and  silver  made  by  the  latter  with  the  elixir;  though  otherwise 
Stirk  was  “a  pure  Helmontian.”3  Hartlib,  apparently  quoting  Stirk,  re- 
cords that  the  “anonymous  adept”  in  New  England,  presumably  the  same 
person  as  the  films  Hermetis , got  his  hints  from  reading  some  papers  of 
John  White,  called  the  Gilder  of  Norwich.4  In  the  same  year,  1651, 
Robert  Child  told  Hartlib  of  Stirk’s  “admirable  skill”  in  the  making  of 
furnaces  of  all  kinds,5  and  of  his  having  discovered  how  to  make  furnaces 

2 In  that  year  Leader  was  replaced  by  John  Gifford  in  the  management  of  iron  works 
in  Massachusetts;  Kittredge  11.  12. 

3 In  his  Pyrotechny , Epistle  Dedicatory,  iii,  Stirk  says  of  Helmont:  “whom  I for- 
merly made  my  Chymical  Evangelist,  but  do  now  believe,  not  convinced  by  his 
Arguments  and  Reasons,  but  by  Experimental  Confirmation  and  Practical  Ocular 
Demonstration.”  Cf.  ibid.,  78,  where  Stirk  acknowledges  that  he  has  reaped  more 
benefit  from  Helmont’s  writings  than  from  those  of  any  other  ancient  or  modern 
writer,  and  has  spent  fourteen  years  in  the  prosecution  of  Helmont’s  discoveries 
without  the  least  cause  for  repenting  that  he  ever  undertook  to  do  so.  In  1650  Hart- 
lib recorded  that  Stirk  was  a great  lover  and  admirer  of  Helmont,  and  in  the  same 
year  Child  told  Hartlib  that  Stirk  knew  “almost  all  Helmont  by  heart.” 

4 Not  identified. 

5 Stirk  himself  said,  in  a letter  to  the  younger  Winthrop  of  2 August  1648 : “I  have 
built  a furnace,  very  exquisitely”;  Winthrop  Papers , V.  241—242.  In  Natures  Ex - 


1949]  George  Stirk,  Philosopher  by  Fire  225 

like  Glauber’s  before  seeing  any  of  the  latter’s.  Early6  in  1651,  John  Dury 
saw  Stirk  extract  from  antimony  silver  equal  in  weight  to  gold,  and  from 
iron  gold  of  the  color  of  the  rose  noble,  and  estimated  that  Stirk  might 
easily  make  £300  a year  in  this  way.  However,  Stirk  could  only  make 
three  ounces  of  silver  and  gold  at  a time,  and  complained  that  he  found  the 
making  hard  work,  like  that  of  a horse  working  a mill  continually;  where- 
as, if  he  had  more  accommodation  and  used  more  instruments,  he  might 
make  as  many  ounces  as  he  pleased.  Benjamin  Worsley,  therefore,  who 
claimed  that  he  and  Johann  Moriaen  could  turn  the  antimonial  silver 
into  gold  and  extract  gold  in  great  quantity  from  tin  and  iron,7  wished 
Stirk  to  cease  toiling  for  small  quantities  and  join  them  in  their  work, 
whereby  he  would  be  a great  gainer.  Stirk,  however,  had  vowed,  if  he  got 
“the  great  secret,”  not  to  make  any  private  profit  by  it.  Moreover,  ac- 
cording to  Dury,  Stirk  himself  could  turn  silver  into  gold,  and  could 
also  extract  silver  from  tin,  his  silver  amazing  people  by  its  exact  resem- 
blance to  ordinal*}'-  silver;  he  had  at  last  found  someone  who  would  pay 
him  what  he  asked  for  this  silver,  but  Worsley  had  pointed  out  the  danger 
of  selling  it  thus,  since  it  ought  to  be  handed  in  to  the  Mint. 

On  30  May  1651  Stirk  wrote  a letter  to  Johann  Moriaen,  then  at 
Amsterdam,  to  whom  he  was  introduced  by  Dury  in  a letter  which  de- 
scribed Stirk  as  possessed  of  the  same  desire  as  themselves,  viz.,  to  promote 
piety,  truth  and  every  virtue  useful  for  the  propagation  of  Christianity,8 
and  which  expressed  the  hope  that  Moriaen  and  Stirk  would  work  to- 
gether for  these  ends.  Stirk  told  Moriaen  that  he  pursued  truth,  not  fame, 
and  had  no  secrets  for  sale.  He  had  seen  the  “stone”  for  making  gold,  and 

(had  been  given  some  ounces  of  the  “stone”  for  making  silver  by  a young 
friend,  who  had  both  “elixirs”;  the  friend  was  still  alive,  but  his  name 
Stirk  had  bound  himself  by  oath  to  conceal  for  ever.  Stirk  had  seen  his 
friend,  an  adept,  make  and  multiply  his  elixir  with  sophic  mercury,  but 
without  seeing  exactly  how,  because  of  the  caution  observed  by  the  adept. 
Stirk  had  lost  seven  of  his  nine  parts  of  the  “stone”  in  trying  it  with  sophic 
mercury  given  him  by  the  adept,  before  discovering  that  the  “stone”  had 

'plication , 38,  he  said,  speaking  of  the  early  years  of  his  chemical  studies:  “I  invent- 
ed many  sorts  of  Furnaces.” 

6  Hartlib  made  this  entry  in  his  Ephemerides  just  after  23  April. 

7  For  a description  of  a process  for  the  transmutation  of  metals  see  1 19—120  of 
The  Stone  of  the  Philosophers  in  Collectanea  Chemica  (1893). 

8  Cf.  Pyrotechny , 55,  where  Stirk  says:  “The  Gifts  of  God  are  not  our  own  to  em- 
ploy at  our  pleasure,  but  are  to  be  used  for  his  Glory,  and  the  good  both  of  our- 
selves, and  such  among  whom  we  converse.” 


226  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [feb. 

impurities  which  hindered  the  multiplication.9  After  he  had  made  many 
unsuccessful  attempts  to  extract  such  mercury  from  metals  and  minerals, 
God  in  pity  gave  him  the  idea  of  the  difference  between  the  extraction  of 
mercury  from  bodies  “in  the  destructive  way”  and  that  which  “occurs  in 
male  and  female.”1  The  latter,  called  “copper  mercury,”  enabled  him  to 
extract  the  purest  gold  and  wonderful  silver,  almost  equal  to  gold  in 
weight;  it  separates  gold  into  “irreducible  antimony”  and  a black  powder 
within  two  months.  Stirk  does  not  claim  that  this  is  the  true  sophic  mer- 
cury, but  he  believes  it  is  its  true  basis;  and  it  differs  little  from  the  true, 
of  which  he  still  has  a little.2 

9 Cf.  Ferguson,  of.  cit.,  n.  403 ; Stirk  “is  said  to  have  . . . obtained  ...  a quantity 
of  a powder  for  transmuting  metals  into  silver  . . . but  [to  have]  lost  his  powder  in 
attempts  to  convert  it  into  the  tincture  for  gold.”  For  other  cases  of  supposed  trans- 
mutation of  metals,  and  stories  based  thereon  of  a mysterious  adept  who  possessed 
the  necessary  “stone”  or  powder,  see  Kittredge  11.  133— 134.  Stirk  himself,  in  an 
undated  letter  to  Clodius  which  I place  in  July  or  August  1652,  told  of  the  recent 
visit  to  him  in  London  of  an  old  philosopher  (of  at  least  75  years  of  age)  from 
Brussels,  a familiar  friend  of  Helmont  when  alive,  who  had  received,  along  with 
Helmont,  a little  piece  of  the  Elixir  Aurificum  from  a Monsieur  Shatteleet,  a friend 
of  Helmont,  and  who  had  many  secrets,  including  a universal  liquor,  and  could  dis- 
solve everything,  including  gold,  on  which  he  worked  chiefly,  trying  to  recombine 
this  volatile  irreducible  oil  with  its  mercury,  separated  by  his  tinctures,  and  to  digest 
it  into  a green,  white  and  yellow  powder. 

x Cf.  88  of  The  Stone  of  the  Philosophers,  in  Collectanea  Chemica  (1893)  : “some, 
who  were  adepts  in  the  art,  have  by  painful  processes  taken  gold  for  their  male,  and 
the  mercury,  which  they  knew  how  to  extract  from  the  less  compacted  metals,  for  a 
female.”  Cf.  97-98 : “We  shall  go  on  to  observe  that  the  ores  of  Metals  are  our  First 
Matter,  or  sperm,  wherein  the  seed  is  contained,  and  the  key  of  this  art  consists  in 
a right  dissolution  of  the  ores  into  a water,  which  the  philosophers  call  their  mer- 
cury, or  water  of  life,  and  an  earthy  substance,  which  they  have  denominated  their 
sulphur.  The  first  is  called  their  woman,  wife,  Luna,  and  other  names,  signifying 
that  it  is  the  feminine  quality  in  their  seed  5 the  other  they  have  denominated  their 
man,  husband,  Sol,  etc.  to  point  out  its  masculine  quality.  In  the  separation  and  due 
conjunction  of  these  two  with  heat,  and  careful  management,  there  is  generated 
a noble  offspring,  which  they  have  for  its  excellency  called  the  quintessence,  or  a 
subject  wherein  the  four  elements  are  so  completely  harmonised  as  to  produce  a 
fifth  subsisting  in  the  fire,  without  waste  of  substance,  or  diminution  of  its  virtue.” 
2 In  his  address  “To  the  Reader”  in  the  Marrow  of  Alchemy,  as  quoted  by  Fergu- 
son, of.  cit.,  II.  475,  Stirk  says  that  the  author  of  that  work  “was  an  eye-witnesse 
of  the  great  secret  . . . [and]  had  by  gift  a portion  of  that  precious  Jewel  so  sought 
for  by  many  but  found  of  few;  which  portion  although  he  did  for  the  most  part  lose 
it  in  hopes  of  multiplication  of  it  (which  he  could  not  attain,  being  of  the  White 
not  the  Red  powder),  yet  by  diligent  search  and  industry  he  attained  the  prepara- 
tion of  the  Philosophers  Mercury,  and  by  it  to  the  preparation  of  the  Elixir  of  the 
first  order,  which  is  indeed  but  of  small  vertue  compared  to  what  it  may  be  advanced 
to  . . . [but]  which  will  tinge  $ or  any  imperfect  metal  into  (J  .”  On  8 August 
1653,  Hartlib  recorded  that  Clodius  had  transcribed  and  sent  to  Moriaen  the  true 
preparation  of  this  Philosopher’s  Mercury,  as  Stirk  had  imparted  it  to  Boyle.  Stirk 


1949]  George  Stirk,  Philosopher  by  Fire  227 

In  April  1652  Dury  wrote  to  Hartlib  expressing  the  hope  that  Stirk 
would  “not  make  haste  at  an  adventure  upon  the  great  work,”  but  would 
set  upon  “the  lucriferous  experiments  which  God  hath  put  into  his  hand,” 
and  so  promote  “his  own  comfort”  and  “the  accomplishment  of  our  joint 
public  designs.”  In  a letter  to  Hartlib  of  29  May  of  the  same  year  Dury 
mentioned  Stirk’s  illness  and  went  on:  “I  can  say  nothing  else  but  that 
he  hath  been  faith  full  hitherto  to  11s  in  his  aimes;  if  God  would  have 
blessed  his  endeavours  and  directed  him  a way  of  advantage  to  trade  there- 
with, he  might  have  been  out  of  his  straits  before  this  time,  but  that  which 
he  has  thought  the  most  compendious  and  reddie  way  for  his  own  relief 
and  the  advancement  of  public  designs  hath  not  obtained  a blessing  of 
successe  hitherto.  I could  have  wished  that  he  had  followed  the  plainest 
roade  way  of  knowen  experiments  which  might  have  been  lucriferous; 
but  his  hope  to  abbreviat  his  way  hath  retarded  his  designe  for  want  of 
successe.” 

Frederick  Clodius  told  Hartlib,  his  father-in-law,  in  August  1652  that 
it  was  said  Stirk  could  certainly  make  from  copper  a gold  that  stood  all  the 
tests  except  that  of  taste,  and  from  which  could  be  made  vessels  answering 
in  color,  weight  and  beauty  to  the  purest  gold;  but  that  Stirk’s  extraction 
of  silver  from  tin  was  the  more  profitable  experiment.  On  18  August 
1652  Hartlib,  Dury  and  Clodius  made  a pact  in  which  they  stated  that 
their  joint  efforts  to  promote  the  public  good  were  not  to  injure  or  preju- 
dice anyone,  and  that  their  efforts  were  to  help  Stirk  and  serve  his  honor 
and  advantage. 

Hartlib  has  recorded  that  on  2 March  1653  Stirk  came  and  told  him 
that  he  had  now  perfected  his  experiment  to  make  Luna  fixa,  and  that  this 
silver  passed  all  the  tests  of  the  goldsmith,  being  therefore  equivalent  to 
gold  except  for  the  color,  which  could  easily  be  added.  Later  that  year 
Stirk  told  Hartlib  that  an  ounce  of  his  silver  sold  for  forty  shillings;  he 
wore  a ring  of  antimony  obtained  from  this  silver  and  mixed  with  some 
pure  gold  which  was  thereby  turned  into  silver  and  made  incapable  of 
separation  from  it. 

Stirk  himself  related  in  verse  his  experiments  in  transmutation,  and  the 
following  excerpts3  give  the  gist  of  the  story  as  he  told  it: 

“An  Artist  once  I said,  I knew  him  well  . . . 

Of  whom  I from  my  knowledge  can  rehearse, 

That  he  had  both  Elixer  white  and  red  . . . 

describes  the  differences  between  Philosopher’s  Mercury  and  the  Alcahest  in  his 
Pyrotechny , 22—25. 

3 Marrow  of  Alche?ny , First  Part,  1654,  Second  Book,  21—32. 


228  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [feb. 

Of  the  white  medicine  to  me  a part 
He  freely  gave  two  ounces  weight  or  more 
Which  was  of  vertue  truly  to  convert  . . . 

Full  six-score  thousand  times  its  quantity. 

I nothing  found  which  was  to  it  of  kin, 

But  it  would  tinge  it  into  silver  pure  . . . 

[which]  Would  like  to  gold  abide  in  aqua  jort 
And  would  like  gold  passe  Antimony,  yea, 

In  weight  it  equal’d  Sol,  so  that  report 

Hath  told  me  it  was  white  gold  by  th’  assay  . . . 

Only  of  Sol  it  wanted  colour  due, 

If  I had  known  this  working  when  I had 
More  of  my  medicine,  I had  been  made. 

For  why  this  Lune  is  gold  indeed,  and  will 
For  gold  be  sold  at  more  than  half  the  rate, 

At  which  that  Sol  which  tincted  hath  its  fill  . . . 

This  man  who  gave  this  gift  to  me  . . . 

For  living  he’s  I hope  . . . 

His  present  place  in  which  he  doth  abide 
I know  not,  for  the  world  he  walks  about  . . . 

By  Nation  an  Englishman,  of  note 
H is  Family  is  in  the  place  where  he 
Was  born,  his  Fortunes  good,  and  eke  his  Coat 
Of  Arms  is  of  a great  antiquity, 

His  learning  rare,  his  years  scarce  thirty  three  . . . 

When  then  on  me  he  freely  did  conferre 
The  foresaid  blessing,  also  he  did  adde 
A portion  of  his  Mercury  . . . 

This  Mercury  was  that  with  which  he  did 
H is  Redstone  multiply  exceedingly  . . . 

I thought  that  if  the  red 

And  white  were  both  multiplicable,  then 

One  progresse  linear  to  either  led, 

Which  was  a false  ground,  this  my  errour  ten 
Of  twelve  parts  quite  destroi’d,  and  yet  unwise, 

So  many  lessons  might  me  not  suffice. 

Those  two  parts  then  I mixed  with  Luna  pure, 

Ten  other  times  its  weight,  and  then  anew 
I fell  to  work  again,  hoping  that  sure, 

Once  right  might  nineteen  errours  losse  renew, 

Yet  when  my  fire  was  almost  out,  I thought 
Upon  the  reason  of  the  thing  I sought. 

So  that  few  grains  [of  my  white  medicine]  excepted  I did  waste 
All  what  I had  bestowed  on  me  . . . 


1949]  George  Stirk,  Philosopher  by  Fire  229 

My  fire  nigh  out,  I forced  was  to  spend 
Some  of  what  did  remain  to  serve  expense  . . . 

And  need  since  that  inforced  me  to  use 

Some  little  of  a little,  so  that  now 

The  rest  I was  compel’d  (ne  could  I choose) 

To  mix  with  Luna  fine,  or  else  I trow 
I soon  a grain  might  lose  which  was  my  store, 

This  then  I mixt  with  other  ten  grains  more  . . . 

Thus  with  my  trials  oft  my  Mercury 

Was  now  to  nothing  brought  or  very  little  . . . 

At  last  my  good  friend  once  again  I met, 

And  what  had  happened  I did  not  hide, 

I . . . hop’d  anew  from  him  to  be  supplied, 

But  this  also  my  hope  was  much  deluded  . . . 

For  when  he  understood  what  I had  tri’d  . . . 

He  saw  that  if  he  me  anew  suppli’d, 

That  1 could  go  to  the  Hesperian  Tree, 

And  pluck  the  Apples  at  my  list,  and  then 
Might  do  much  mischief  unto  honest  men.” 

In  1655  Boyle  told  Hartlib  that  Dr.  Jones4 5  was  making  a full  trial  of 
the  experiment  on  antimony  and  gold  which  Stirk  had  imparted  to  Boyle, 
and  had  already  found  that  the  antimony  did  “much  exalt”  the  gold,  so 
that  silver  might  be  mixed  with  it. 

Stirk  records0  that  he  was  first  set,  through  the  incitation  and  encour- 
agement of  Helmont,  upon  the  search  for  the  immortal  dissolving  liquor, 
called  by  Paracelsus  his  Liquor  Alchahest . To  the  search  for  this  “liquor,” 
which  was  the  thing  he  most  desired  in  the  world,  he  devoted  himself 
seriously  for  fully  eight  years  and  persevered,  in  spite  of  the  tediousness 
involved  in  its  preparation,  until  he  learned  the  secret  of  its  origin  and 
preparation.6 

The  eight  years7  would  appear  to  have  been  from  1644  to  1652.  It  was 


4 Henry  Jones  (1605— 1682). 

5 Pyrotechny , 79. 

6 Ibid. , 18—19.  He  devotes  five  chapters  of  that  work  (IX— XIII,  17—46)  to  a de- 
scription of  its  “vertue  and  efficacy,”  the  material  from  which  it  is  made  and  the 
manner  of  making  it. 

7 In  Natures  Explication,  x 657,  295,  Stirk  states  the  time  involved  rather  differently: 
“I  must  ingenuously  professe  that  my  mind  was  so  fixed  with  eagerness  after  that 
secret  [Liquor  Alcahest]  that  I did  for  nigh  ten  years  make  it  my  main  search.” 
In  his  Pyrotechny , 34,  he  writes  “of  many  years  tryals  (off  and  on)  but  of  nigh 
two  years  almost  daily  (I  am  sure  weekly)  search.”  The  two  years  may  well  have 
dated  from  his  arrival  in  England  at  the  end  of  1650. 


230  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [feb. 

in  1644,  as  has  already  been  mentioned,  that  Stirk  began  to  study  chem- 
istry in  his  spare  time.  When  Worsley  informed  Hartlib  on  29  Novem- 
ber 1650,  of  Stirk’s  arrival  in  England  he  mentioned  that  he  had  come 
“with  a ful  confidence  of  the  Altahest”;  and  Hartlib  himself  recorded, 
after  his  first  meeting  with  Stirk  on  1 1 December  1650,  that  Stirk  could 
“fix  mercury.”  Early  in  1651  Boyle  told  Hartlib  that  the  preparation  of 
the  liquor  that  Stirk  must  make,  “I  mean  the  Altahest,”  would  cost  him 
two  or  three  months;8  and  we  have  already  noted  that,  at  the  end  of 
May  1651,  Stirk  claimed,  in  his  letter  to  Moriaen,  to  have  discovered  how 
to  obtain  sophic  mercury  or  something  almost  exactly  the  same.9  Hartlib 
recorded  that,  on  26  August  1652,  Clodius  saw  the  mercury  “brought 
over  the  helm”  by  Stirk’s  Alcahest,  and  as  we  have  already  seen,  Stirk 
told  Hartlib  on  2 March  1653,  t^iat  ^a(^  perfected  his  experiment  to 
make  Luna  jixa\  but  in  the  summer  of  1653  Clodius  told  Hartlib  that  he 
had  sent  Stirk  an  extract  from  Helmont  about  what  the  Alcahest  “prop- 
erly was,”  and  its  virtues  and  uses,  “which  Stirk  never  knew.” 

Stirk  himself  said  in  1 65 7,1  that  as  soon  as  he  knew  the  secret  of  the 
Liquor  Alcahest,  and  could  prepare  it,  “my  spirit  was  so  satisfied  with 
the  knowledge  thereof,  that  I never  hitherto  prepared  it.  For  the  way 
as  I made  it  was  very  tedious.”  Elsewhere2  he  explained  that,  since  his 
success  in  the  search  for  the  secret,  he  had  never  had  a convenient  op- 


8 In  his  Pyrotechny , 26-27,  Stirk  said  he  hoped  to  be  able  to  prepare  the  liquor  in 
50  $ [=  ? days],  perhaps  in  only  40.  Boyle  ultimately  saw  and  admired  the  liquor 
which  Stirk  obtained,  but  it  seemed  to  him  “far  short  of  the  Alkahest”}  T.  Birch, 
Works  of  the  Hon.  Robert  Boyle , 6 vols.  (London,  1772),  II.  97  (where  the  “chy- 
mist”  is  to  be  identified  with  Stirk,  and  where  the  “Dr.  C.”  is  Clodius).  The  white 
tincture  (which  transmutes  the  inferior  metals  into  silver),  and  the  (higher)  red 
(which  is  a universal  remedy)  are  described  in  The  Stone  of  the  Philosophers , 116- 
117. 

9 Early  in  1651  Child  told  Hartlib  that  the  elixir  which  Stirk  was  then  making  “is 
not  yet  that  universal  Alkahest,  but  it  is  an  approximation.”  Stirk  must  have  told 
Child  about  the  progress  of  his  experiments  before  the  latter  left  England  for  Ire- 
land, where  he  landed  on  20  May  1651,  for  Child  wrote  thus  from  Ireland  to 
Hartlib  about  Stirk  on  23  November  1652:  “I  believe  he  hath  already  tould  me  his 
Alkahest.  I am  glad  if  it  prove  soe.” 

1 Natures  Explication , 295.  Astell,  a friend  of  Stirk,  stated  in  the  preface  to  his  edi- 
tion (1675)  of  Stirk’s  Liquor  Alchahest\  “I  must  confess,  I never  could  get  a sight 
of  the  Alchahest  prepared  by  him.” 

2 Pyrotechny , 31,  34.  On  153,  159—160  and  168— 169  he  writes  of  his  lack  of  con- 
veniences, such  as  space  and  suitable  furnaces,  for  further  operations.  In  Natures 
Explication , 225,  he  also  writes  of  “oft  times  running  in  debt  for  conveniences,  and 
necessaries,  and  sparing  out  of  my  belly  to  finde  out  new  experiments.”  Astell,  op. 
et  loc.  cit.,  speaks  of  Stirk’s  “want  of  conveniences,  being  hurried  from  place  to 
place,”  as  a possible  reason  for  his  never  having  seen  Stirk’s  Alcahest. 


19491  George  Stirk,  Philosopher  by  Fire  2 3 1 

portunity  to  repeat  the  operations,  and  that  he  lost  what  he  had  of  the 
liquor  through  the  breaking  of  his  glass  vessel. 

He  advised3  others,  however,  against  beginning  their  study  of  chem- 
istry in  aid  of  medicine,  as  he  had  done,  with  the  search  for  this  secret, 
which  is  “the  top-stone  of  medicinal  art,”  likening  such  a course  to  the 
madness  of  a man  who,  having  to  climb  a ladder,  wants  to  begin  at  the 
top  and  refuses  to  use  the  lower  rungs. 

Stirk  claimed  that  the  Liquor  Alcahest  was  itself  a noble  and  universal 
medicine4  and  also  that,  by  its  use,  specific  remedies  for  various  diseases 
could  be  made  from  vegetables,  metals  and  minerals;5 6  the  highest  prep- 
aration of  gold  that  could  be  made  by  it  being  able  to  cure  the  most  de- 
plorable diseases,0  but  “the  sweet  oyl  of  Venus,”  prepared  from  copper 
and  the  liquor,  being  the  most  “sovereign  remedy  for  most  (not  to  say  all) 
diseases.”7 

Before  Stirk  came  over  from  New  England,  Robert  Leader  informed 
Hartlib  that  Stirk  prepared  his  own  medicines  and  had  cures  for  such 
desperate  diseases  as  dropsy  and  “dead  palsy,”  and  Child  told  Hartlib 
that  Stirk  was  “famous  already  for  curing  the  palsy  and  other  incurable 
diseases.”  When  Hartlib  himself  met  Stirk  in  London  for  the  first  time 
on  1 1 December  1650,  Stirk  was  “going  about  to  prepare  his  physick”; 
and  a little  later  Child  told  Hartlib  that  Stirk  had  spent  all  his  medicines, 
having  given  most  of  them  away,  before  he  came  from  New  England, 
but  had  already  twenty  good  patients  in  England  and  was  still  undertak- 
ing to  cure  fevers,  the  stone,  the  falling  sickness  and  dropsy. 

In  regard  to  the  stone,  Child  told  Hartlib  in  December  1650  that  Stirk 
had  a “liquor”  which,  put  into  the  eye,  did  not  hurt,  but  which  dissolved 
“before  your  eys”  a stone  from  the  bladder  put  into  it,  and  which  is  there- 
fore to  be  injected  into  the  bladder  to  cure  that  disease.  He  added  that 
Stirk  had  not  yet  prepared  that  “liquor,”  but  could  cure  the  stone  in  the 
kidneys  “more  readily”;  apparently  by  means  of  another  medicine,8  for 

3 Pyrotechny,  49;  cf.  80,  where  he  disapproves  of  the  zeal  that  made  him  search 
for  the  Liquor,  almost  to  the  neglect  of  all  other  things,  when  he  would  have  done 
better,  as  he  advises  others  to  do,  to  proceed  more  gradually  and  secure  ground 
gained  before  trying  to  win  new. 

4 Pyrotechny , 21.  In  1652  Clodius  called  Stirk’s  Alcahest  a most  noble  medicine  and 
universal,  except  for  the  stone,  “which  requires  another  preparation.” 

5 Ibid.,  28—31. 

6 Ibid.,  32. 

7 Ibid.,  32-33. 

8 A few  weeks  later,  however,  Child  told  Hartlib  that  Stirk,  then  lodged  with  Mr. 
Webbe  [perhaps  Joseph  Webbe],  was  making  a liquor  which  was  an  approximation 


232  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [feb. 

early  in  January,  1651,  Boyle  informed  Hartlib  that  Stirk  had  made 
ready  the  other  “liquor”  for  curing  the  stone  in  the  kidneys.  Boyle  added 
that  Stirk  had  prescribed  that  Boyle  take  the  liquor,  one  ingredient  of 
which  was  Essentia  Croci , in  a vehiculum  of  white  wine  with  “oculis  can- 
crorfum]  contusis,”  and  had  commended  highly,  “as  most  proper  for 
the  kidneys,”  the  spirit  of  sulphur,  the  spirit  of  salt,  the  spirit  of  turpen- 
tine and  “mire”  [?  myrrh]. 

In  his  letter  to  Moriaen  of  30  May  1651  Stirk  claimed  to  have  learned 
from  a description  by  Johannes  Helmont  the  secret  of  the  preparation 
of  the  “mercury  of  life”  of  Paracelsus,  and  to  have  then  made,  from  the 
“best”  mercury  and  the  purest  “copper  antimony,”  a medicine  which, 
though  not  yet  perfect,  cures,  so  far  as  he  has  tried  it,  gout,  consumption 
and  other  inveterate  diseases  commonly  called  incurable.  Indeed,  he 
seems  to  have  sought  a more  universal  medicine  for  years.  Even  as  early 
as  the  beginning  of  1651  Boyle  told  Hartlib  that  the  preparation  of  the 
“physick”  or  Liquor  Alcahest  would  take  Stirk  two  or  three  months,  and 
as  late  as  the  middle  of  1653  Boyle  told  Hartlib  that  Stirk  was  bragging 
that  he  had  “now  perfected  nobiliss[imam]  medicinam  which  he  had  re- 
duced ad  mellaginem,9  i.e.,  which  is  sulphur  of  mercury  or  q[uick]  sil- 
ver, to  be  now  used  without  any  danger  at  all.”  Indeed,  he  claimed  that 
his  later  medicine  “far  exceeded”  the  “pill”  that  he  used  in  the  earlier 
years  from  1651  to  1655.1 

In  1652  Clodius  told  Hartlib  that  Stirk’s  medicines  were  then  only  in 
the  form  of  salts,  so  that  they  could  not  be  sent  far  away  because  they 

to  the  Alcahest,  and  which  would  do  to  cure,  without  pain  or  injury,  the  stone  “in 
the  reines  and  bladder,”  but  would  need  at  least  ten  weeks  for  its  preparation. 
Moreover,  later,  in  his  Starkey’s  Pill  [?  1660],  8,  Stirk  claimed  to  have  prepared 
the  Ludus  of  Helmont,  twenty  drops  of  which  cure  the  stone  “radically,  both  in  the 
kidneys  and  bladder,  and  take  away  all  future  inclinations  thereto.”  For  this  Ludus, 
and  Hartlib’s  wish  to  have  it  prepared  for  him  by  Clodius  in  1659,  see  Birch,  of. 
cit .,  11.  96—97,  and  vi.  122. 

9 Sic,  for  ? melliginem. 

1 Starkey’s  Pill,  2.  Cf.  A brief  Examination,  where  he  says  (p.  1)  that  in  1651  he 
began  to  use  publicly  in  his  medical  practice  several  “succedaneous”  remedies,  i.e., 
rather  inferior  substitutes,  for  the  cure  of  diseases,  especially  acute  diseases,  and  (p. 
4)  that  he  had,  since  1655,  “amended  and  advanced  beyond  credit”  the  pill,  whose 
preparation  he  taught  to  Mr.  Mathew  in  that  year.  In  his  The  Admirable  Efficacy 
...  of  True  Oil  ...  of  Sulfhur  Vive  (in  Collectanea  Chemica  [1893],  51-53)  he 
refers  to  the  pill  as  an  “anodinous  elixir,”  saying  that  he  had  improved  upon  it  to 
such  an  extent  that  it  was  now  the  most  inferior  in  virtue  of  all  his  medicines,  and 
called  by  him  his  “Elixir  Diaphoretick  Commune,”  of  which  “able,  judicious  prac- 
titioners (having  once  bought  his  more  effective  and  higher  graduated  preparations 
in  the  same  kind)  have  so  low  an  esteem  (comparatively  to  these  others)  that  they 
desire  no  more  thereof.” 


2 3 3 


1949]  George  Stirk,  Philosopher  by  Fire 

would  melt,"  a disadvantage  which  could  be  overcome  when  they  were 
brought  to  perfection  in  powders. 

In  1657, in  attack  on  those  doctors  whom  he  called  Galenists,  Stirk 
challenged  them  to  a trial:2 3 4 5  “let  them  give  me  as  much  for  each  party 
cured,  as  I will  forfeit  for  each  uncured  of  a thousand  in  acute  diseases 
in  four  daies,  that  is,  in  Feavers,  Pleurisies,  Small-pox,  Measles,  Fluxes, 
Calentures,  and  Agues  four  fits,  not  Hectical,  or  if  Quartan  and  Hecti- 
call,  in  four  weeks,  provided  the  strength  be  not  wasted  to  despair.”  He 
claimed1  that  he  cured  yearly  more  fevers,  agues  and  pleurisies  than  any 
Galenist  did  in  about  twice  the  time,  sometimes  dealing  annually  with 
nearly  two  hundred  cases  of  ague,  and  with  many  more  of  fever,  pleurisy, 
flux  and  vomiting,  of  which  scarcely  five  were  not  perfectly  cured,  and 
that,  moreover,  many  doctors,  in  London  and  in  the  country,  used  his 
medicines  to  cure  and  relieve  thousands  of  people  every  year. 

Whether  or  not  he  obtained  a universal  medicine  in  the  form  of  the 
Liquor  Alcahest,  Stirk  was  trying,  as  early  as  1652,  to  prepare  medicines 
without  the  latter.  By  the  autumn  of  that  year,  according  to  Hartlib’s 
record,  Stirk  had  found  out  a kind  of  fermentation  whereby  he  could 
prepare  excellent  medicines  and  cordials,  “as  good  as  if  they  were  done 
with  the  Alcah[est],  yet  without  the  Alcahest,”  and  instanced  the  medi- 
cines he  made  ex  herbis  venenatis.  In  December  1652  he  told  Hartlib  that 
he  had  perfected  his  Tartarus  V olatilis?  whereby  he  could  prepare  all 

2 On  24  March  1652  Dury,  who  had  embarked  on  a ship  for  Sweden,  wrote  to  Hart- 
lib  that,  when  he  opened  the  medicine  which  Stirk  had  given  him,  he  found  that 
“the  moist  aire  of  the  sea  had  begunne  to  cause  it  melt  5 therefore  I gotte  a small 
glass  bottle  and  put  it  into  it,  that  if  it  should  melt  it  should  not  be  lost.” 

3 Natures  Explication,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Reader,  which  is  dated  20  November 
1656. 

4 Natures  Explication , 232—233.  He  adds:  “but  my  cures  are  too  contemptible  for 
the  rich,  counsel  and  medicine  in  almost  two  thirds  of  my  cures  scarce  exceeding, 
sometimes  not  amounting  to  a crown,  not  one  in  forty  rising  to  above  an  Angel.” 
On  p.  225  he  says,  in  reference  to  a physician  who  was  making  £1000  a year,  that 
he  himself  cures  in  a year  about  as  many  poor  patients  gratis  as  this  physician  has 
in  his  practice,  and  goes  on:  “to  others  that  are  rich,  I give  both  medicines  and 
counsel,  asking  nothing  till  the  cure  is  performed,  and  then  by  some  put  off  with 
little,  and  by  some  with  nothing,  because  my  medicaments  are  but  little  in  quantity, 
and  the  cure  (beyond  expectation)  speedily  effected}  and  yet  whatever  I do  get  I 
lay  out  in  future  discoveries,  and  all  to  do  good  to  an  ungrateful  generation}  oft 
times  running  in  debt  for  conveniences,  and  necessaries,  and  sparing  out  of  my  belly 
to  finde  out  new  experiments  in  medicine,  and  yet  for  all  this  getting  on  one  hand 
hatred  and  opposition,  and  on  the  other  hand,  contempt  for  performing  cures  so 
soon  and  cheap;  yet  I know  that  my  reward  will  be  a good  name  when  I am  gone, 
and  from  God  hereafter.” 

5 Cf.  Birch,  op.  cit.,  11.  150— 151,  where  Boyle  quotes  from  Helmont  about  this  salt 


234  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [feb. 

kinds  of  medicines  without  the  Alcahest,  and  that  he  valued  it  as  much  as 
the  latter,  if  not  more,  for  the  preparation  of  medicines. 

His  friend,  Astell,  who  never  saw  Stirk’s  Alcahest,  said0  that  he  did 
not  know  whether  the  reason  was  that  Stirk  was  importuned  for  reme- 
dies by  patients,  whose  condition  would  not  permit  their  waiting  for 
medicines  “of  so  high  a preparation,”  or  that  Stirk’s  want  of  conven- 
iences hurried  him  from  place  to  place ; but  he  added  that  he  knew  Stirk 
to  possess  several  “magisteries,”  or  potent  curative  agencies,  and  to  have 
been  master,  not  many  months  before  his  death  in  1665,  of  a mercurial 
medicine,  “whose  effects  were  such  that  it  merited  the  name  of  an  Ar- 
canum.” As  we  have  already  seen,  Stirk  was  constantly  seeking  for  more 
and  more  universal  medicines.7 

Stirk’s  discovery  in  1652  of  a process  of  fermentation  whereby  he 
could  prepare  cordials  without  the  Alcahest  as  good  as  those  made  with 
it  has  just  been  mentioned.  Hartlib’s  record  of  this  information  adds  that 
the  “Elixir  Proprietatis8  is  very  fragrant  and  refreshing.”  Stirk  himself 
told  Hartlib  in  the  same  year  that  he  reckoned  that  the  best  cordial  in  the 
world  was  “Chircotan,”9  the  material  for  which  was  to  be  sent  to  him 
from  Bilbao  by  his  friend  Mr.  Neale,  along  with  orange  flowers  and  other 
things. 

Stirk  had  specific  cures  for  various  ailments  and  diseases.  In  1651  Boyle 
told  Hartlib  that  Stirk,  acting  on  a “singular  opinion”  from  Helrnont,  was 
undertaking  to  cure  consumption  by  a new  kind  of  ferment  under  the 
throat,  this  “being  the  seat  of  that  disease.”  In  1651  Child  told  Hartlib 
that  Stirk  had  cured  Colonel  (Owen)  Rowe’s  daughter  of  imperfections 


of  tartar,  discusses  the  possibility  of  volatilizing  it,  and  mentions  that  “an  ingenious 
acquaintance  of  mine  [?  Clodius],  whom  notwithstanding  my  wonted  distrusts 
of  chymists,  I durst  credit,  affirmed  to  me,  that  he  had  himself  seen  a true  and  real 
Sal  tartari  volatile , made  of  alkali  of  tartar,  and  had  seen  strange  things  done  with 
it”  [?  by  Stirk].  Stirk  himself  ( Pyrotechny , 80)  quotes,  like  Boyle,  the  same  advice 
of  Helrnont  to  the  medical  chemist:  “If  you  cannot  attain  to  that  hidden  fire  [the 
Liquor  Alcahest],  yet  learn  to  make  the  Salt  of  Tartar  Volatile,  that  by  it  you  may 
make  your  dissolutions.” 

6 Of.  et  loc.  cit. 

7 Early  in  1651  Hartlib  recorded  that  Stirk  should  have  gone  on  first  of  all  with 
his  “lucriferous”  experiment  of  antimony  (for  transmutation)  and  have  prepared 
his  universal  medicines  afterwards. 

8 Cf.  what  Boyle  says  of  this  elixir  and  of  its  use  as  a cordial  and  as  a medicine,  and 
what  Hartlib  and  John  Beale  thought  of  it;  Birch,  of.  cit.,  II.  149,  VI.  94,  351. 
According  to  Stirk  ( Pyrotechny , 30),  Helrnont  commended  it  for  long  life. 

9 Perhaps  chiratin,  one  of  the  chief  constituents  of  chirata,  from  which  a bitter  is 
made. 


1949]  George  Stirk,  Philosopher  by  Fire  235 

in  her  eyes,  “which  the  chirurgeons  and  doctors  could  not  doe”;  and  in 
1653  Stirk  himself  informed  Hartlib  that  the  heart  and  liver  of  a viper, 
taken  out  fresh  or  hot  and  put  into  wine,  makes  a drink  which  is  an  excel- 
lent preservative  and  restorative  for  the  eyes,  because  those  organs  are 
“mighty  venereal  and  so  consequently  excellent.”  In  his  record  of  his  first 
meeting  with  Stirk  in  December  1650  Hartlib  noted  that  “in  feavers1  he 
used  a Bezoardicum2  and  somw*  [?  somewhat]  of  antimony,”  and  early 
in  1651  Boyle  told  Hartlib  that  Stirk  had  almost  got  ready  his  medicine 
for  fevers.  Early  in  1651,  too,  Dury  told  Hartlib  that  Stirk  claimed  that 
only  one  thing  would  take  away  the  “noisome”  taste  from  spirit  of  urine3 
by  making  it  aromatic;  Dury  thought  Stirk  meant  “something  of  civet,” 
but  was  not  sure. 

In  1653  Boyle  told  Hartlib  that  Stirk  had  a great  store  of  his  laudanum 
and  that  it,  his  Ens  Veneris 4 5 6 and  Ens  H aimatinutri'  were  excellent  medi- 
cines. The  E?is  V eneris  would  not  cure  chronic  diseases,0  but  was  excellent 
for  other  diseases,  such  as  agues,  fevers,  headaches  and  French  pox,  and 
was  a medicine  for  the  poor,  because  enough  to  serve  a hundred  poor  peo- 
ple could  be  prepared  for  five  shillings. 

Besides  trying  the  transmutation  of  metals,  searching  for  the  Liquor 

1 On  2 August  1648  Stirk  asked  the  younger  Winthrop  to  lend  him  Helmont’s  De 
Febribus ; Winthrop  Papers , v.  241—242. 

2 For  this  cf.  Birch,  op.  cit .,  11.  122,  129. 

3 See  Birch,  op.  cit.,  11.  130— 13 1,  for  Boyle’s  views  on  its  use  as  a medicine  for 
pleurisy,  coughs  and  other  “distempers.” 

4 Stirk  claimed  ( Starkey’s  Pill , 6)  that,  so  far  as  was  known,  he  was  the  first  per- 
son to  make  this  medicine  in  England,  which  he  did  in  1652  for  Boyle,  “who  hath 
wrote  of  its  excellency,  as  his  extant  Treatise  thereof  can  testify.”  He  adds  that  it 
“is  yellow  as  the  purest  gold  and  approaches  the  element  of  the  fire  of  Venus,”  and 
that  it  is  much  superior  to  a preparation  that  he  made  in  1651  for  Boyle,  who  com- 
mended it.  Boyle  does  not  seem  to  have  devoted  a treatise  to  it,  but  refers  to  it  as 
“cheap  enough  to  be  fit  for  the  use  of  the  poor”  and  as  “flores  colchotharis,”  and 
says  that  he  and  “an  industrious  chymist”  [Stirk]  known  to  Pyrophilus  [Richard 
Jones,  later  Viscount  Ranelagh],  whom  he  is  addressing,  looking  at  that  tract  of 
Helmont’s  which  he  calls  Butler,  tried  wrhether  a medicine,  somewhat  approaching 
to  that  he  (Helmont)  made  in  imitation  of  Butler’s  stone,  might  not  be  easily  made 
out  of  calcined  vitriol,  and  found  this  medicine,  of  which  he  then  describes  the  prep- 
aration and  virtues  (Birch,  op.  cit.,  11.  135—136).  Stirk  mentions  Helmont’s  Ens 
Veneris  and  his  “Tractate  entituled  Butler”  in  Pyrotechny,  157.  Cf.  Birch,  op.  cit., 
11.  215— 219,  where  Boyle  describes  how  he  and  Stirk  first  found  the  medicine,  its 
preparation,  dose,  use  for  fevers,  etc.;  and  v.  590,  for  its  effect  in  a febris  pete- 
chialis. 

5 Boyle  discusses  the  making  and  medicinal  virtues  of  spirit  of  blood ; Birch,  op.  cit., 
IV.  especially  617  and  637— 745  (really  645). 

6 Stirk  described  its  preparation  and  eulogized  it  as  a “sovereign  remedy  for  most 
(not  to  say  all)  diseases”  in  his  Pyrotechny,  32—33 ; cf.  Birch,  op.  cit.,  vi.  612— 613. 


236  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [feb. 

Alcahest  and  making  medicines,  Stirk  made  experiments  in  other  direc- 
tions too.  Early  in  1651  Hartlib  recorded  that  Stirk  had  made  an  experi- 
ment to  preserve,  by  way  of  decoction,  the  scent,  color  and  shape  of  plants 
or  flowers.  In  his  letter  of  30  May  1651,  Stirk  informed  Moriaen  that 
he  had  a secret  process  of  fermentation  for  making  aromatic  oils,  oils  of 
roses,  and  rosewood  oil,  far  more  in  quantity  and  much  better  in  quality 
than  the  ordinary  ones,  and  that  he  would  make  them  if  they  could  be 
sold  well. 

Stirk  went  to  St.  James’s  Palace  to  distil  oils  himself,  possibly  soon 
after  his  arrival  in  England.  He  was  certainly  doing  so  in  March  1652, 
but  illness,  apparently  in  April  of  that  year,  stopped  the  work  and  Stirk 
had  to  leave  St.  James’s.7 

Later,  probably  in  1652,  Hartlib  also  recorded  the  information  from 
Clodius  that  Stirk  had  imparted  the  recipe  for  oil  of  Benjevin8  to  “Mr. 
Smith  the  globe-maker  near  the  Glasshouse  at  Ratclife.”9  Apparently 
about  the  same  time  Worsley  told  Hartlib  that  he  had  got  from  a friend 
at  Rome  the  “rarest”  recipe  for  making  essences  and  aqua  Angelor[umY 
or  aqua  Romana , which  had  “the  most  delicate,  soft  and  spirituous  reviving 
smel”  that  he  had  ever  smelled,  and  far  exceeded  anything  that  Stirk  had 
ever  made;  but  he  confessed  that  it  was  to  be  used  only  on  choice  and 
delicate  flowers,  such  as  jasmine,  roses,  citron  and  orange  flowers,  Stirk’s 
method  with  woods,  gums  and  spices  still  remaining  the  best.  About  the 
middle  of  1653  Clodius  told  Hartlib  that  Stirk  had  two  ways  of  making 
oil  of  roses,  the  second,  and  “more  compendious”  of  which  ways  Clodius 
had  written  down  for  Hartlib;  and  in  the  middle  of  1655  he  told  Hartlib 
that  three  or  four  drops,  taken  inwardly,  of  the  oil  of  roses,  as  Stirk  made 
it,  was  “a  very  fine  gentle  purge.” 

Hartlib  also  recorded,  probably  in  1652,  that  Stirk’s  experiment  for 
making  ice  “in  the  hottest  room  or  summer”  would  be  worth  much  in 
Italy,  where  the  cardinals  are  accustomed  to  bring  to  table  pieces  of  ice 

7 Dury,  who  had  embarked  at  London  on  a ship  for  Sweden  by  24  March  1652, 
wrote  to  Hartlib  on  14  May  of  that  year  asking  whether  Stirk  had  set  to  work  on 
his  oils  and  with  what  success,  and  also  enquiring  what  sale  the  oil  had  had  which 
Stirk  was  preparing  when  Dury  left  London.  Apparently  the  venture  did  not  succeed, 
for  Stirk  lamented  to  Robert  Child  his  misfortune  in  removing  to  St.  James’s  to  dis- 
til oils. 

8 Benjamin. 

9 So  I interpret  Hartlib’s  bad  writing.  His  meaning  is  not  clear.  Ratcliffe  was  a 
suburb  of  London  outside  the  city  wall  towards  the  east.  There  was  a Glasshouse, 
which  appears  to  have  been  an  inn,  in  Broad  Street ; but  that  was  within  the  city 
wall. 

1 Angel  water. 


19491  George  Stirk,  Philosopher  by  Fire  237 

with  which  to  cool  their  drinks;  the  procuring  of  the  ice  costs  them  much 
pains,  care  and  expense,  which  would  be  saved  if  Stirk’s  method  were 
used. 

Stirk  thought  it  possible  to  make  diamonds  and  jewels  artificially  by 
means  of  the  “Elixir,”  meaning  perhaps  the  Alcahest;  but  a man  from 
the  East  showed  him  the  secret  of  making  them  from  “a  certain  sea- 
sand,””  and  in  1653  Stirk  intended  to  try  the  experiment,  which  he  im- 
parted to  Moriaen,3  who  in  turn  passed  it  on  to  Clodius.  Stirk  believed 
that  by  this  art  diamonds  and  jewels  might  be  made  in  all  countries  and 
become  so  plentiful  that  “the  pride  of  jewels  [would  be]  made  con- 
temptible.” 

He  also  commended  highly  in  1655  t0  Boyle  a way,  which  had  been 
practised  with  great  success,  to  double  or  quadruple  a certain  amount  of 
saltpetre.  It  consisted  of  putting  layer  upon  layer  of  “good  fat  earth,” 
each  layer  being  sprinkled  with  a certain  proportion  of  saltpetre,  letting 
it  stand  in  a barrel  for  four  months,  and  then  emptying  all  the  urine  of  the 
house  upon  it  from  time  to  time  for  four  more  months,  by  the  end  of 
which  time  much  of  it  would  have  been  converted  into  good,  pure  salt- 
petre.4 

Towards  the  end  of  1652  Stirk  told  Hartlib  that  he  (Stirk)  could 
make  himself  rich  and  retire,  if  he  wished  to  retire,  by  making  cochineal 
out  of  the  roots  and  leaves  of  the  prickly  pear  which  grows  in  abundance 
in  the  Bermudas.  Hartlib’s  comment  on  this  idea  in  his  record  is  pointed 
and  characteristic:  “Ergo  let  him  discover  it  to  the  publick  seeing  hee 
doth  not  retire.”  Stirk  could,  however,  have  answered  that  comment  in 
this  way  from  his  Pyrotechny :5  “So  that  unless  a Man  have  Lands  to  live 
of  (and  such  as  have,  are  rarely  Favourers,  or  Followers  of  Philosophy) 
he  must  provide  himself  of  some  lucriferous  Experiments,  in  the  mean 
while,  to  defray  charges,  and  help  him  to  live,  or  else  his  Philosophy  will 
go  near  to  be  starved  itself,  and  to  starve  the  Philosopher.” 

2 Hartlib  gives  this  information  after  quoting,  as  a parallel  and  confirmation,  the 
following  passage  about  diamonds  from  Fontana,  De  Microscopio , 150:  “Arena 
specillo  supposita  non  arenam  videmus,  sed  praestantissimos  Smaragdos  et  Rubinos: 
insuper  cernuntur  Porphyritides  Achates  et  innumerae  gemmae.”  Francesco  Fon- 
tana’s (1580— 1656)  Novae  coelestlum  et  terrestrium  Rerum  Observationes , specillis 
a se  inventis , et  act  summam  perfectionem  perductis  editae  (Naples,  1646),  has  a 
treatise  on  the  microscope. 

3 Hartlib’s  record  states  also  that  (Jean  Baptista)  Coen  had  imparted  to  Moriaen  as 
“a  very  rare  secret”  the  way  to  make  white  and  yellow  diamonds. 

4 Clodius,  who  had  this  information  from  Boyle  and  passed  it  on  to  Hartlib,  was  to 
give  the  method  a trial. 

5 Page  79. 


2 3 8 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [feb. 

Hartlib’s  papers  also  contain  a good  deal  of  miscellaneous  information 
about  Stirk.  Near  the  end  of  1652  he  recorded  that  Stirk  had  become  ac- 
quainted with  Lord  Dover,6  “a  great  chymist,”  very  well  acquainted  with 
Butler,  who  should  have  married  a kinswoman  of  his.  Early  in  1653 
Stirk  engaged  someone7  to  make  wine  out  of  corn.  In  1653  gave  Hart- 
lib  a piece  of  cloth  made  from  “talk,”8  out  of  which  the  best  and  most 
lasting  of  lampwicks  might  be  made.9  In  the  same  year  Mr.  More1  got 
from  Boyle  Stirk’s  Balsam  of  Vegetables,  Clodius  informed  Hartlib  that 
Stirk  had  just  invented  an  excellent  kind  of  iron  retort  which  saves  half 
the  time  and  charges  for  making,  and  Stirk  himself  told  Hartlib  that 
treble  fermentation,  which  made  beer  and  ale  as  clear  as  rock  water,  was 
becoming  common  in  brewing.  Hartlib  recorded  in  1655,  after  17  Sep- 
tember, the  news  from  Clodius  that  Stirk  had  gone  to  Bristol  “to  assist 
the  work  of  refining  there”  and  to  practise  medicine;  and  in  1656,  on 
the  2nd  or  3rd  of  July,  Stirk  himself,  who  had  come  to  London  to  get  a 
patent  for  an  invention  “for  a continual  blast  [?  furnace]  etc.,”  told 
Hartlib  that  he  had  found  near  Bristol  a mine  of  ore  like  antimony,  yet 
not  it,  but  very  like  silver,  from  which  all  kinds  of  plate  might  be  made, 
“which  shall  shew  as  fair  as  any  silver”;  also  a mine  of  talc,  “very  fair,” 
of  which  he  did  not  know  the  use,  except  that  it  was  good  to  be  given  for 
bleeding.  Early  in  1651  Boyle  told  Hartlib  that  Stirk  was  “about  to  re- 
fute” Vaughan2  and  also  to  translate  a chemical  book  from  Latin  into 
English.3 

Mention  has  already  been  made,  in  connection  with  Stirk’s  experiments 
on  the  transmutation  of  metals,  of  a films  Hermetis  in  New  England,  from 
whom  Stirk  got  his  hints  and  some  of  the  “stone”  for  the  transmutation, 
and  of  the  confession  of  the  anonymous  adept  in  New  England,  presum- 
ably the  same  person,  that  he  had  got  his  hints  for  the  same  purpose  from 
reading  certain  papers  of  one  John  White,  whom  Hartlib  took  to  be  called 

6 Henry  Carey,  first  Earl,  died  1666.  On  28  February  1653/1654  Hartlib  wrote 
Boyle  about  Stirk  (Birch,  of.  cit.y  vi.  80)  : “I  hear  there  are  secret  transactions  be- 
tween him  and  my  Lord  Dover;  but  I am  afraid  they  will  all  vanish  into  smoke.” 

7 Hartlib  thought  it  was  Mr.  Webbe  [perhaps  Joseph  Webbe]. 

8 Talc. 

9 Hartlib  comments:  “But  it’s  objected  that  the  oile  will  foul  them  for  all  that.” 

1 Henry  More  may  be  meant;  or  John  Moore,  Mrs.  Dury’s  second  son  by  her  first 
husband. 

2 Presumably  Thomas.  Four  works  by  him  were  published  in  1650:  Anthrofosofhia 
Theomagia,  Anima  Magica  Abscondita , Magia  Adamica,  and  The  Man-Mouse  taken 
in  a Traf  (Ferguson,  of.  cit.,  11.  195-196). 

3 This  may  have  been  his  own  Liquor  Alkahest , of  which  he  wrrote  a Latin  version 
(cf.  Pyrotechny , 35),  but  which  was  published  in  English. 


19491  George  Stirk,  Philosopher  by  Fire  239 

the  Gilder  of  Norwich.  The  following  are  other  references,  found  among 
Hartlib’s  papers,  to  this  mysterious  personage. 

In  1651  Hartlib  recorded,  just  after  the  foregoing  note  about  John 
White,  that  Stirk  was  to  set  down  the  whole  story  of  the  adept  in  New 
England,  with  all  the  matters  of  fact  about  the  old  woman  getting  new 
teeth  and  hair,  and  about  new  life  in  the  peach  tree  that  had  been  with- 
ered for  eight  years,4  and  that  Stirk  had  been  advised  since5  by  the  adept 
that  he  had  “lighted  on  6o.c  that  had  the  Lapis.”  A chemical  manuscript 
of  this  adept  is  mentioned  as  early  as  1653,  and  even  earlier,  if  an  entry  in 
the  Efhemerides  were  written  in  1652,  as  seems  to  me  likely,  to  the  effect 
that  the  manuscript  seemed  somewhat  obscure  to  John  Pell,  but  that 
Clodius,  if  Stirk  would  “open”  but  one  passage  to  him,  would  find  all  the 
rest  absolutely  clear.  In  May  1653  Clodius  told  Hartlib  that  Alexander 
von  Suchten’s  books,  diligently  read  with  this  manuscript,  unfold  clearly 
the  whole  philosophical  mystery; 7 adding,  a few  days  later,  that  the  manu- 
script of  Ripley  to  King  Edward*  should  be  read  with  the  two  other 
sources  for  the  clear  unfolding  of  the  mystery  of  the  philosopher’s  stone. 
Early  in  1655  Clodius  told  Hartlib  that  the  whole  secunda  operatio  for  the 
great  work  was  wholly  wanting  in  the  manuscripts,9  so  that  Schlezer1 
rightly  complained  of  a hiatus  in  those  writings.  Early  in  1657  Clodius 
told  Hartlib  that  von  Suchten’s  Elucidation  book,  or  a commentary  on 
him,  which  Hauprecht2  had,  contained  most  of  the  secrets  of  which  Stirk 
bragged,  and  deserved  to  be  translated.  On  18  March  1658,  Kretschmar3 
told  Hartlib  that  the  materia  Lafid\is ],  which  was  truly  expressed  some- 
where in  the  manuscript  of  Stirk’s  New  England  adept,  had  been  most 
satisfactorily  revealed  to  him  (Kretschmar)  that  day;  and  later  that  year 

4 Apparently  as  the  result  of  the  use  of  some  such  medicine  as  the  Liquor  Alcahest,  or 
some  substitute  for  it.  Cf.  Pyrotechny , 150,  for  the  renewing-  of  hair,  teeth,  and  also 
skin. 

5 Since  coming  to  England,  presumably. 

6 So  the  manuscript. 

7 Of  the  philosopher’s  stone,  no  doubt. 

8 Presumably  the  Epistle  to  King  Edward  IV. 

9 Called  this  time  “the  Indian  manuscripts  of  Stirk” ; yet  the  marginal  note  has 
“Ms.  chym.  Stirk.” 

■■■Johann  Friedrich  Schlezer,  who  came  to  England  in  1655  as  the  agent  of  the 
Elector  of  Brandenburg. 

2 J.  F.  Hartprecht,  concerning  whom  see  my  article,  “Peter  Stahl,  The  First  Public 
Teacher  of  Chemistry  at  Oxford,”  Annals  of  Science , vol.  9,  no.  3 (September 
1953))  267,  n.  14. 

3 Frederick  Kretschmar,  a physician,  who  was  in  London  from  1657  to  1658  seek- 
ing financial  help  for  twenty  exiled  Protestant  families  driven  out  of  Bohemia. 


240  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [feb. 

Hauprecht  told  Hartlib  that  the  manuscript  of  Stirk’s  New  England  adept 
was  the  Introitus  [ Afertus ] ad  occlusum  Regis  Palat\_ium\  ,4  which  reveals 
the  philosopher’s  stone  more  clearly  than  any  other.5  Early  in  1659  Hart- 
lib  recorded  that  the  adept  of  Clodius  judged  the  last  part  of  “Stirks  or 
the  American  Ms.”  to  be  truly  genuine,  the  processes  there  being  very 
truly  set  down  and  revealed,  but  the  other  parts  to  be  “altogether  sophis- 
ticated and  full  of  cheats.”6 

We  have  already  seen  that  Stirk’s  friend  Astell  wrote  of  Stirk,  for 
want  of  conveniences,  “being  hurried  from  place  to  place.”  Some  of  his 
places  of  lodging  are  known.  When  Hartlib  met  him  for  the  first  time  on 
1 1 December  1650,  Stirk  had  hired  a house  “for  the  present”  in  Hosier 
Lane.  In  1651,  between  19  January  and  12  February,  Child  told  Hartlib 
that  Stirk  was  “now  lodged  with  Mr.  Webbe”;  this  seems  to  suggest  a 
change  of  place.  Ele  was  at  St.  James’s  Palace  in  165 2, 7 was  living  “ob- 
scurely”8 at  Rotherhithe  in  February  1654,  went  to  Bristol  in  1655  and 
seems,  from  Hartlib’s  Efhemeridesy  to  have  been  still  there  in  1656.  In 
1658,  apparently  in  the  summer,  he  wrote  from  his  “chamber  at  the 
White  Swan  in  Foster  Lane.”9  His  address  on  18  June  16601  was  St. 
Thomas  Apostles  in  London,  where  his  wife,  Susanna,  died  on  21  Feb- 
ruary 1 662, 2 and  he  was  still  there  in  1664, 3 “next  door  to  Black-Lyon- 
Court”;  but  on  9 December  of  that  year  his  address  was  “Bartholomew 
Lane,  second  door  below  the  Excise  Office.”4  On  21  June  1665,  the  year 
in  which  he  died,  he  was  at  “Broad  Street,  second  dwelling-house  from 
Winchester-street.” 5 

Stirk  was  ill  in  1652,  certainly  by  mid- April,  as  appears  from  Dury’s 
letter  to  Hartlib  of  29  May,  answering  one  from  Hartlib  about  Stirk’s 

4 For  this  and  other  manuscripts  which  Stirk  said  he  got  from  the  person  to  whom 
they  were  given  by  the  author  see  Ferguson,  of.  cit .,  11.  475—476,  and  Kittredge  11. 
134-136. 

5 Writing,  presumably. 

6 The  reference  is  perhaps  to  the  Introitus  Afertus. 

7 As  mentioned  above  (p.  000),  he  was  there  in  March  1652 ; it  was  perhaps  when 
Dury  returned  from  Sweden  in  July  1652  that  he  had  to  leave. 

8 As  Hartlib  put  it  in  a letter  to  Boyle  of  the  28th  of  that  month;  Birch,  of.  cit.,  vi. 
80. 

9 Pyrotechny , 172. 

1 Royal  and  other  innocent  hloud , 43. 

2 The  Dignity , Introduction,  p.  xviii,  n.  7. 

3 When  he  wrote  The  admirable  efficacy,  cf.  Ferguson,  of.  cit.,  II.  404. 

4 A smart  scourge,  8. 

5 Efistolar  Discourse,  63. 


1949]  George  Stirk,  Philosopher  by  Fire  241 

condition,  written  six  weeks  before.  The  news  of  God’s  “hand  of  sick- 
ness” upon  Stirk  did  “much  affect  and  afflict”  Dury.  In  an  earlier  letter, 
of  2 April  1652,  Dury  had  expressed  wonder  that  Stirk  had  followed 
Boyle’s0  advice  and  taken  out  the  windows  of  his  room,  “seeing  the  open 
roome  must  needs  admit  of  all  changes  of  aire,  and  so  make  the  heat  of  his 
furnace  variable  and  impossible  to  be  constant  at  one  tenure.”  This  sug- 
gests for  the  illness  a possible  reason  which  is  supported,  and  amplified,  by 
a letter  from  Robert  Child  to  Hartlib  of  2 February  1652/1653,  in 
which  Child  says:  “I  am  very  sorry  to  hear  of  Mr.  Stirkes  indisposition. 
I cannot  easily  believe  that  any  in  England  are  so  malitious  as  to  poyson 
any,  but  I suppose  his  infirmity  hath  proceeded  partly  by  the  London  aire 
which  will  not  easily  agree  with  those  that  have  bin  educated  in  a purer, 
and  partly  by  his  chymicall  experiments;  for  I,  whilst  I was  at  London, 
ofttimes  tould  him,  that  he  would  ruine  himselfe  by  using  charcoale  in 
places  without  chimneys,7  as  also  by  the  preparations  of  mercuriall  and 
antimonious  medicines.” 

Stirk  was  in  prison  for  debt  in  1654,  for  how  many  weeks  Hartlib  knew 
not,s  but  was  delivered  from  it  for  “the  second  time.”9  He  seems  to  have 

6 Stirk  was  introduced  to  Boyle  by  Child,  a mutual  friend  ( Pyrotechny , Epistle 
Dedicatory).  This  must  have  been  between  about  29  November  1650,  by  which  date 
Stirk  had  arrived  in  England,  and  16  January  1651,  by  which  time  Stirk  had  pre- 
scribed a medicine  for  Boyle.  Boyle  must  have  undertaken  to  help  Stirk,  or  employ 
him,  because  Dury,  who  had  asked  Boyle,  through  Hartlib,  on  2 April  1652,  to 
persuade  Stirk  to  set  upon  his  lucriferous  experiments  and  not  “to  make  haste  at  an 
adventure  upon  the  great  worke,”  writing  to  Hartlib  on  14  May  of  that  year,  says: 
“I  would  also  know,  what  realitie  he  [Boyle]  hath  performed  towards  Mr.  Stirk.” 

7 Cf.  the  advice  Stirk  himself  gave,  no  doubt  with  his  own  case  in  mind,  in  his 
Marrow  of  Alchemy , Second  Part  (1655),  22 : 

“Nor  let  thy  room  be  so,  wherein  thy  heat 
Thou  keep’st  immortal,  that  the  fumes  arising 
From  coals  no  vent  may  finde,  for  thou  maist  get 
(As  some  have  done,  hereof  less  care  devising) 

Therby  much  harm,  which  late  thou  will  repent, 

Hazarding  life  by  their  most  hurtful  scent.” 

? Letter  from  Hartlib  to  Boyle,  28  February  1653/16545  Birch,  of.  cit.,  VI.  79. 
Hartlib  writes  (ibid.,  80,  81)  of  Stirk’s  “ungrateful  obstinacy”  and  of  him  as  be- 
ing “altogether  degenerated,”  as  having  always  concealed  “his  rotten  condition,” 
as  having  deceived  Mr.  Webbe  and  had  no  communication  with  Clodius  since  Boyle 
went  to  Ireland,  and  as  not  keeping  his  promise  to  write  “diligently”  to  Boyle.  The 
English  doctor  (Kittredge  11.  136)  says  of  his  coming  to  know  Stirk  after  the  latter 
had  used  up  all  his  “tincture”:  “Then,  at  my  expense,  and  that  of  certain  friends  of 
mine,  we  discovered  the  emptiness  of  his  words.”  Kittredge  himself  (11.  146)  re- 
fers to  Stirk’s  “teeming  brain  and  not  too  scrupulous  conscience.”  The  last  entry 
in  Hartlib’s  Efhemerides  of  direct  information  from  Stirk  was  made  between  3 and 
25  September  1653. 

9 Presumably  in  that  year. 


242  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [feb. 

been  in  prison  again,  or  at  least  in  confinement,1  for  at  least  ten  months 
in  1 65  8 ; 2 a confinement  which,  he  says,  he  accepted  patiently  because  it 
gave  him  the  time  for  experiments  which  his  medical  practice  had  scarcely 
afforded  when  he  was  at  liberty.3  It  is  also  said4  that  he  was  in  prison  in 
London  for  his  debts  when  he  died  in  1665. 

Stirk  died  in  London  of  the  plague  in  1665, 5 in  consequence,  it  is  said, 
of  having  made  a post-mortem  examination  of  a victim  of  that  disease.6 

Some  information  may  be  gathered  about  his  personal  qualities  from 
the  sources  available.  Leader  told  Hartlib  in  1650,  before  Stirk  arrived 
in  England,  that  the  latter  was  “very  laborious  studious  and  experimen- 
tal,5>  and  Child  confirmed  that  opinion  early  in  1651  by  telling  Hartlib 
that  Stirk  was  “of  an  extreame  laborious  disposition.”  Stirk  said7  that,  in 

1 Pyrotechny  (1658),  161—164.  and  168— 169.  Stirk  says  through  the  malice  of  Dr. 
William  Currer,  who  “perverted  my  Attorney,  produced  an  unconscionable  hell- 
faced Fellow  (with  a Bushel-wide  Conscience)  to  swear  against  me,  and  prevari- 
cate against  the  Truth,  by  which  Oath  I was  considerably  and  unrighteously  damni- 
fied.” Currer,  he  adds,  was  a former  acquaintance  who  had,  since  his  persecution 
of  Stirk,  lost  his  medical  and  moral  reputation,  much  to  Stirk’s  grief,  for  Currer 
had  been  a man  of  wit,  a scholar,  an  able  physician  and  an  acute  chemist. 

2 Which  may  have  begun  in  1657,  for  John  Beale,  in  a letter  to  Hartlib  of  3 Novem- 
ber of  that  year,  refers  to  Stirk’s  “distresse.”  He  adds:  “I  ...  did  expect  that  his 
foule  language  would  beget  strong  adversaries.”  This  gives  a clue  perhaps  to  Stirk’s 
“confinement,”  for  he  had  attacked  the  Galenical  doctors  severely  in  his  'Natures 
Explication  (1657;  Epistle  to  the  Reader  signed  by  Stirk  on  20  November  1656). 
It  must  be  noted,  however,  that  in  that  work  (Epistle  Dedicatory)  Currer  is  one 
of  the  doctors  specifically  mentioned  as  “chymically  given,”  and  therefore  exempt 
from  Stirk’s  attack.  Stirk  may,  therefore,  have  been  in  error  in  attributing  his  “con- 
finement” to  the  malice  of  Currer.  It  was  early  in  1651,  before  going  to  Ireland,  that 
Child  told  Hartlib  about  Currer,  who  was  then  apparently  in  England,  and  either 
he  or  Hartlib  may  have  brought  Stirk  and  Currer  acquainted  with  one  another. 
Early  in  1653  Child  described  Currer  to  Hartlib  as  “real  and  honest  to  his  freind[s] 
and  a very  good  chymist,”  and  added,  “I  know  not  a better  companion  in  that  kind 
for  Stirk  than  he  is.” 

3 We  do  not  know  when  this  “confinement”  ended,  but  it  may  not  have  been  over 
by  8 December  1657,  when  Hartlib  told  Boyle  (Birch,  of.  cit.,  VI.  97)  he  had  got 
an  answer  to  Beale’s  “demands  about  insects,”  which  were  intended  for  Stirk,  from 
another  “good  hand.” 

4 Quoted  by  Kittredge  (11.  136)  from  an  English  doctor’s  account  of  Stirk,  written 
not  later  than  1677.  There  is  no  other  evidence,  so  far  as  I know,  to  confirm  this 
statement,  and  the  accounts  of  his  death,  to  be  mentioned  later,  do  not  seem  to  bear 
it  out. 

5 The  D.N.B.  says  1666,  and  so  does  Astell,  Stirk’s  friend,  in  the  Preface  to  his  edi- 
tion (1675)  of  Liquor  A Ichahest ; but  this  date  is  unlikely,  in  view  of  the  definite 
statement  by  George  Thomson  (referred  to  in  n.  114)  and  of  the  sharp  fall  in 
deaths  from  plague  after  September  1665. 

6 Ferguson,  of.  cit.,  II.  403,  449;  three  accounts  of  his  death  are  given  there,  404. 

7 Pyrotechny , 93. 


1949]  George  Stirlc,  Philosopher  by  Fire  243 

order  to  win  such  secrets  as  that  of  the  Liquor  Alcahest,  “Night  after 
night  must  be  spent  ...  so  I have  done,  and  still  continue  to  do”;  and  in 
1664,  in  regard  to  his  chemical  studies,  he  affirmed:8  “this  is  the  one  and 
twentieth  year  therein,  during  which  few  have  exceeded  me  in  pains, 
and  unwearied  industry.”  Elsewhere  he  called  himself1'  “an  indefatigable 
prosecutor  of  experiments,”  “taking  nothing  upon  any  mans  trust  so  as 
to  build  anything  on  it,  or  to  draw  any  conclusion  from  it.”  Mention  has 
already  been  made  of  the  opinion  of  Stirk  which  Dury  wrote  to  Moriaen 
in  May  1651;  in  his  letters  to  Hartlib  of  1652  he  writes  that  Stirk  “seemes 
to  make  haste  and  doth  things  oft  times  at  an  adventure,”  but  that  “he 
hath  been  faithful  hitherto  to  us  in  his  aimes”;  he  promises  to  help  Stirk 
when  he  returns  from  Sweden  to  England  and  adds:  “I  know  it  is  an  in- 
ward grief  unto  his  spirit,  that  he  is  not  in  a capacitie  to  do  what  hee  faine 
would.”  In  his  letters  to  Hartlib  from  Ireland  in  1652  Child  several  times 
sent  his  love  to  Stirk,  and  in  February  1653  wrote  asking  Dury  and 
Hartlib  to  give  Stirk  some  good  counsel,  “for  I look  on  him  as  a bird  who 
is  flowen  into  the  world  before  fully  feathered,1  or  as  a good  vessell  with 
much  saile  and  little  ballast;  he  wants  as  yet  the  ballast  of  yeares  and  ex- 
perience of  the  world.”  In  April  1653  t0^  Hartlib  that,  if  Stirk  “hath 

bin  unkind  to  you,  yet  continue  your  accustomed  love  and  goodnes  to  him, 
and  advise  him  for  the  best;  he  hath  I question  not  excellent  things  in 
him  if  it  please  God  to  give  him  likewise  wisdom  to  use  them.”  Hartlib, 
in  spite  of  his  strictures  on  Stirk  in  his  letter  to  Boyle  of  28  February 
1653/1654,  nevertheless  adds  charitably  there:2  “When  God  hath 
brought  you  over  again  [from  Ireland  to  England],  we  shall  leave  him 
altogether  to  your  test,  to  try  whether  yet  any  good  metal  be  left  in  him 
or  not.”  The  English  doctor  already  mentioned  said3  of  Stirk  a few  years 
after  his  death:  “He  has  been  the  cause  of  many  evils  by  means  of  his  de- 
ceptions”; but  Stirk’s  friend  Astell,  writing  about  the  same  time,  said  this 
of  him,4  “It  was  his  misfortune  to  justifie  Truth  in  an  Age  when  Chy- 
mistry  had  few  friends  that  durst  appear  to  justifie  her.  . . . Had  he  not 
met  with  many  Crosses  and  Troubles,0  doubtless  his  discoveries  had  been 
greater;  and  had  not  he  been  cut  off  by  that  raging  Pestilence,  1666, 

8 A smart  scourge , 6-7.  9 Natures  Ex-plication , 37—38. 

1 Stirk  says  of  himself  ( Marrow  of  Alchemy  [1654]  ; Ferguson,  op.  cit.,  11.  475)  : 
“being  unwilling  myself  to  fly  to  writing  before  my  wings  be  fledged  with  more  ex- 
perience.” 

2 Birch,  op.  cit.,  VI.  80.  3 Kittredge  II.  136. 

4 In  the  Preface  to  his  edition  of  the  Liquor  Alchahest  (1675). 

5 Cf.  Stirk’s  own  account  (n.  4,  page  218)  of  the  treatment  he  had  met  with  in  his 
attempts  to  “do  good  to  an  ungrateful  generation.” 


244  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [feb. 

when  he  was  just  rising  out  of  those  Clouds  which  ecclipsed  his  worth,  it 
would  quickly  have  appeared  to  the  World,  notwithstanding  the  Malice 
of  his  Enemies,  that  he  was  a true  follower  of  Nature  ...  a man  whose 
writings  spoke  him  more  to  the  world  than  his  Person  or  Discourse ; whose 
moral  failings  I dare  no  more  justifie,  but  he  was  a Man,  and  as  such,  the 
best  of  us  are  subject  to  erre.”6  His  attacks  on  the  Galenical  doctors  may 
have  been  due  in  part  to  their  attitude  to  him,7  partly  to  their  contempt  for 
the  application  of  chemistry  to  medicine  and  for  Paracelsus  and  Helmont, 
whom  he  respected  and  valued;  and  we  have  seen  how  fair  he  tried  to 
be  towards  Currer,  whom  he  regarded  as  maliciously  inclined  towards 
him  and  as  the  cause  of  his  being  in  “confinement. ” 

Certainly  from  the  time  that  he  came  to  England,  if  not  before,  Stirk 
put  about  the  story  that  in  New  England,  whence  he  had  come,  he  had 
been  given  some  of  the  powder  or  tincture  for  making  gold  (the  white 
elixir),  some  sophic  mercury,  and  some  unpublished  manuscripts  on 
chemistry,  by  a friend,  who  in  turn  had  them  from  an  adept  called  Eire- 
naeus  Philalethes.  The  manuscripts  were  Ars  Metallorum  M etamorfhoseos  y 
Introitus  A fertus  ad  occlusum  Regis  Palatium , and  Brevis  Manuductio  ad  Ru- 
binum  Coelestem .8 9  Stirk  obtained  copies  of  them  from  his  friend,  “with 
much  adoe,”  but  no  commission  to  show  them  to  anybody.  The  friend, 
Stirk  goes  on  to  say,  who  had  been  an  eyewitness  of  the  “great  secret” 
(of  the  Philosopher’s  stone),  lost  nearly  all  the  powder  he  had  been  given 
by  the  adept  in  his  attempts  to  “multiply”  it,  but  succeeded  in  preparing 
the  “Philosophers  Mercury”  (for  making  silver)  ; he  told  Stirk  that  he 
was  unwilling  to  write  about  his  experiments,  although  so  far  successful, 
until  he  had  made  the  red  tincture,  which  he  was  under  a solemn  vow 
to  the  adept  not  to  undertake  himself,  nor  to  teach  to  others,  for  a certain 
number  of  years.  At  last,  however,  Stirk  persuaded  his  friend  to  write 
two  treatises;  one,  in  seven  books,  called  The  Marrow  oj  Alchemy , and 
another,  in  Latin,  entitled  Breve  Manuductorium  ad  Camfum  Sofhiaed 

6 Ferguson,  of.  cit.y  II.  403,  says  that  Stirk  seems  to  have  been  kindly  judged  by 
George  Thomson  and  Jean  le  Pelletier,  as  well  as  by  Astell. 

7 He  says  ( 'Natures  Exflication , 327)  : “The  Doctors  say  of  me  that  I am  a mounte- 
bank and  want  method.”  He  himself  calls  that  treatise  “somewhat  tart  against  the 
abuses  of  the  Galenists”  ( Pyrotechny , Epistle  Dedicatory). 

8 The  number  was  given  as  twelve  by  an  English  doctor;  Kittredge  11.  135—136. 
Besides  those  given  in  the  text,  four  others  are  named:  Eons  Chymicae  Philosofhiae , 
Brevis  via  ad  vitarn  Ion  gam  y Elenchus  errorum  in  arte  chymica  deviantium , and 
Brevis  Manuductio  ad  Camfum  Sophiae. 

9 “Which  concerns  chiefly  Paracelsus  Liquor  Alchahest.”  It  is  given  as  Brevis 
Manuductio  by  Kittredge  11.  136. 


1949]  George  Stirlc,  Philosopher  by  Fire  245 

Ultimately  he  got  his  friend’s  permission  to  communicate  the  manuscripts 
to  some  friends,  and  they  were  so  much  sought  after  that  Stirk  £Ccould 
never  keep  them  at  home”;  so  that  finally,  uby  much  entreaty,”  he  pre- 
vailed with  his  friend  to  allow  him  to  publish  them,  if  he  wished. 

Before  meeting  this  friend,  Stirk  says,  he  had  for  many  years  been 
‘‘one  of  Geber’s  Cooks,  rosting  my  thrift  in  vain,”  but  the  friend  dem- 
onstrated Stirk’s  previous  errors  and  set  him  in  the  right  path,  so  that  he 
soon  obtained  the  philosopher’s  mercury  and  by  it  “the  first  whitenesse” 
(i.e.,  silver  from  metal)  ; but  the  friend  would  not,  because  of  his  vow, 
instruct  Stirk  in  the  making  of  the  “rednesse”  (gold)  ; indeed,  not  only 
would  he  not  help  Stirk  over  his  difficulties,  which  were  due  to  what  Stirk 
called  errors  “in  Imbibition,  Cibation  and  Fermentation,”  but  he  even 
put  Stirk  out,  i.e.,  misled  him ; not,  Stirk  thought,  out  of  envy,  but  out 
of  scruple  for  his  vow.1 

The  account  drawn  from  Hartlib’s  papers,  and  set  out  above  in  con- 
nection with  the  transmutation  of  metals  and  with  the  mysterious  adept 
in  New  England,  tells  the  same  kind  of  story,  though  with  differences  in 
details.  It  will  be  noted  that  there  Stirk  says  of  himself,  what  he  had  said 
of  his  friend,  that  after  many  unsuccessful  attempts  and  losing  most  of 
the  stone,  he  had  discovered  the  way  to  make  philosopher’s  mercury.  Also 
Hartlib’s  record  of  1659  identifies  “the  American  Ms.,”  which  is  obvi- 
ously one  of  those  supposed  to  have  been  given  to  Stirk  by  his  friend,  with 
Stirk’s  manuscript;  and  it  may  be  that  the  reference  is  to  the  Introitus 
AfertuSy  of  which  the  last  part  is  judged  to  be  truly  genuine  and  the  proc- 
esses in  it  “very  truly  set  down  and  discovered,”  whereas  the  other  parts 
are  considered  to  be  “altogether  sophisticated  and  full  of  cheats.”  More- 
over, the  Marrow  of  Alchemy , in  which  he  gives  the  story  outlined  above, 
was  written  by  Stirk  himself,  so  that  what  is  said  there  of  Stirk’s  friend,  the 
author,  is  said  of  Stirk  himself.2 

Then  again,  Stirk’s  letter  to  Moriaen  of  30  May  1651  ends  thus:  “A 
Philaletha  Philopono  Hermeticae  Scholae  Chemiatra  indignissimo  . . . 
Georgio  Stirkio”;  this  suggests  the  identification  of  Stirk  with  Eirenaeus 
Philoponus  Philalethes.  This  would  agree  with  the  statement  of  the  Eng- 
lish doctor3  that  “Philaletha  Anonymus,”  who  composed  the  various 

1 The  account  so  far  given  is  based  on  what  Stirk  wrote  in  the  preface,  “To  the 
Reader,”  to  the  Marrow  of  Alchemy , First  Part  (1654).  Cf.  Ferguson,  of.  cit .,  11. 
475- 

2 Kittredge  11.  134. 

3 Kittredge  11.  135—1365  but  the  doctor  erred  in  stating  that  Stirk,  when  he  was  23 
years  old,  received  the  tincture  or  white  elixir  in  America  from  Child,  and  probably 


246  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [feb. 

tracts  on  chemistry,  “was  really  George  Starkey.”  Finally,  Stirk  himself 
is  said  to  have  added  the  pseudonym  “Eirenaeus  Philoponus  Philalethes” 
to  his  own  signature,  George  Starkey,  on  two  occasions;4  and  this  is  con- 
clusive evidence  for  the  identification  of  Eirenaeus  Philalethes  with  Stirk. 

APPENDIX 

List  of  works  written  by  Stirk 
and  of  others  possibly  written  by  him 

A.  Works  written  by  Stirk , and  'published 

1.  Natures  Explication  and  PlelmonPs  Vindication , or  a Short  and  sure  way 
to  a long  and  sound  Lije:  Being  a necessary  and  full  apology  for  Chymical 
medicaments,  and  a vindication  of  their  excellency  against  those  unworthy 
reproaches  cast  o?i  the  Art  and  its  Professors  ( such  as  were  Paracelsus , and 
Helmont)  by  Galenists , usually  called  Methodists  ...  By  George  Starkey , 
a Philosopher  made  by  the  fire.  . . . London  1657.  Ferguson,  op.  cit .,  11. 
403,  404.  Wing,  D.,  Continuation  of  a Short-Title  Catalogue , Item  5280. 

The  British  Museum  copy  has  a correction,  by  Thomason,  of  the  date  to 
1656  and  the  addition  of  “Jan.  16.” 

2.  Pyrotechny  Asserted  and  Illustrated , to  be  the  surest  and  safest  Means  for 
ArPs  Triumph  over  Nature's  Infirmities.  Being  a full  and  free  Discovery 
of  the  Medicinal  Mysteries  studiously  concealed  by  all  Artists , and  only 
discoverable  by  Fire.  With  an  Appendix  concerning  the  Nature , Prepara- 
tion, and  V ertue  of  several  Specifick  Medicaments , which  are  Noble  and 
Succedaneous  to  the  Great  Arcana.  By  George  Starkey , who  is  a Philosopher 
by  Fire , London  . . . 1658.  Ferguson,  op.  cit.,  n.  401.  Wing,  5284. 

Stirk  seems  to  have  planned  ( Natures  Explication,  296)  two  treatises,  one 
to  be  entitled  “The  Art  of  Pyrotechny  opened  and  discovered,”  the  other 
to  be  called  “Truth  Asserted  and  Maintained  or  a Chymicall  and  Philo- 
sophicall  resolution  of  certain  questions  sent  me  by  one  veyling  himself  un- 
der the  name  of  Philalethes  Zeteticus”;  but  the  two  seem  to  have  been 

erred  in  stating  that  he  also  got  from  Child  the  titles  of  twelve  tracts  (on  chemis- 
try) that  he  composed.  This  doctor  has  not  yet  been  identified  $ he  says  that  he  made 
Stirk’s  acquaintance  the  year  after  Stirk  got  the  tincture  from  Child  (i.e.,  when 
Stirk  was  24,  and  therefore  in  1652),  but  did  not  come  to  know  Stirk  well  until 
the  latter  had  used  up  all  he  had  of  the  tincture. 

4 Kittredge  11.  134,  n.  4,  says  at  the  end  of  poems  published  in  John  Heydon’s  Idea 
of  the  Law  (1660),  and  his  Theomagia  (1664).  Professor  Kittredge  {ibid.,  146) 
hoped  to  prove,  when  time  served,  that  “Eirenaeus  Philalethes  was  the  creation  of 
George  Stirk’s  teeming  brain  . . . and  the  works  ascribed  to  him,  so  far  as  they  ever 
existed,  were  of  Stirk’s  own  composition.”  Unfortunately,  time  did  not  serve,  and 
Professor  Kittredge  never  wrote  his  promised  account  of  Stirk. 


1949]  George  Stirk,  Philosopher  by  Fire  247 

merged  in  this  one  work,  the  second  being  apparently  contained  in  158— 
172,  “The  Conclusion  of  this  Treatise:  Being,  An  Answer  to  a Friend’s 
Letter,  containing  some  important  Queries  etc,”  where  (page  159)  he  al- 
ludes to  the  friend  as  “an  ingenious  and  discreet  Zetetick.” 

It  is  clear  from  the  Epistle  Dedicatory  and  page  139  that  Stirk  regarded 
Natures  Explication  as  the  first  part  of  this  work. 

3.  George  Starkey's  Pill  vindicated  Jront  the  unlearned  Alchymist  and  all 
other  pretenders — With  a briej  account  of  other  excellent  specif  ick  Reme- 
dies oj  Extraordinary  virtue , for  the  honour  and  vindication  of  pyrotechny . 
Noplace  [?  London].  No  date  [1660?  ].  Ferguson,  op.  cit .,  11.  403.  Wing, 
5283. 

A refutation  of  Mathew’s  claim  to  have  discovered  the  pill,  viz.,  Richard 

Mathew,  The  Unlearned  Alchymist  His  Antidote:  Or , A more  full  and 

ample  Explanation  of  the  Use , Virtue  and  Benefit  of  my  Pill,  Entituled,  An 

„ . ( Diaphoretick,)  . , ( Sweating .1  r , ,, 

effectual  ’ . r , > purgeth  by  l . . . London , 1662. 

M l Diuretick , ) 1 [Urine.  \ 

There  was  a previous  edition  of  1660.  Ferguson,  op.  cit.,  11.  82. 

4.  Royal  and  other  innocent  bloud  crying  to  Heaven  for  vengeance  ...  By 
George  Starkey.  . . . London , 1660.  Ferguson,  op.  cit.,  11.  404.  Wing,  5287. 

5.  A smart  scourge  for  a silly  sawey  Fool,  being  an  Answer  to  a letter,  at  the 
end  of  a Pamphlet  of  Lionell  Lockyer  ...  By  G.S.M.D.  and  Philosopher  by 
the  Fire.  Ferguson,  op.  cit.,  11.  404,  says  1664.  Wing,  5289,  says  1665. 
It  is  signed  (page  8)  by  George  Starkey,  9 December  1664. 

6.  A brief  Censure  and  Examination  of  several  Medicines  of  late  years  extolled 
for  universal  Remedies.  By  George  Starkey  . . . London,  1664.  Ferguson, 
op.  cit.,  11.  404.  Wing,  5272. 

7.  An  Epistolar  Discourse  to  the  Learned  and  Deserving  Author  of  Galeno- 
pale.  By  George  Starkey,  M.D.  . . . 1665. 

Comes  after  page  3 I in  7rAavo-7rviy/>to?,  or  a Gag  for  Johnson  that  published 
Animadversions  upon  Galeno-pale,  and  a Scourge  for  that  pitifull  Fellow 
Mr.  Galen,  that  Dictated  to  him  a Scurrilous  Greek  Title.  By  Geo.  Thom- 
son, Doctor  of  Physick.  London,  1665.  Ferguson,  op.  cit.,  11.  404,  gives 
separately  “Letter  to  George  Thomson,  Lond.  1665,”  which  is  probably 
the  same  work,  though  8°,  not  40. 

8.  Liquor  Alchahest,  or  a discourse  of  that  immortal  Dissolvent  of  Paracelsus 
and  Helmont.  Published  by  J.  A[stell]  . . . 1675.  Ferguson,  op.  cit.,  11. 
404.  Wing,  5277. 

9.  The  Admirable  Efficacy  ...  of  Oyl  which  is  made  of  Sulphur-vive , set  on 
fire,  and  called  commonly  Oyl  of  Sulphur  per  Campanam  . . . Faithfully 


248  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [feb. 

collected  out  of  the  writings  . . . of  J.  B.  Van-Helmont.  1683.  British  Mu- 
seum Copy. 

Is  No.  8 in  Collectanea  Chemica , “A  Collection  of  Ten  several  Treatises 
in  Chymistry  . . . London,”  Printed  for  William  Cooper  . . . 1684. 

Is  No.  3 in  Collectanea  Chemica  . . . (London,  1893),  where  the  title  is 
given  as:  The  admirable  efficacy  and  almost  incredible  virtue  of  True  Oil 
which  is  made  of  sulphur  vive  set  on  fire  and  commonly  called  Oil  of  Sul- 
phur per  campanam.  By  George  Starkey.  Because  in  it  (page  52)  Starkey 
refers  to  UA  Brief  Examination  and  Censure”  as  being  ready  for  the  press 
and  about  to  “see  the  light”  in  a few  days,  this  work  must  have  been  pub- 
lished not  later  than  1664. 

B.  Works  written  by  Stirk , but  not  published 

10.  A Congest  of  Methodical  Arguments.  Written,  in  an  attempt  to  show  how 
gold  could  be  made  potable,  apparently  w’hile  he  was  at  Harvard.  Natures 
Explication , 36. 

1 1.  Organum  Novum  Philosophiae.  Written  against  Aristotle,  after  No.  10  and 
apparently  while  he  was  still  at  Harvard.  Natures  Explication , 37. 

12.  Pyrotechny  Triumpha?it.  Astell,  in  the  preface  to  his  edition  of  Stirk’s 
Liquor  Ale hahest  (1675),  said  that  he  intended  to  publish  this  work,  “which 
the  Author,  had  he  lived,  intended  to  do,  which  will  be  an  Explanation  of 
his  Pyrotechny  Asserted,  and  Explication  of  the  History  of  Nature,  com- 
prehended in  those  subjects.”  In  his  Pyrotechny  (1658)  Stirk  mentions 
what  seems  to  be  this  work  in  four  places,  viz.:  page  148,  “in  my  next  part 
of  Pyrotechny , which  shall  be,  Its  Victory  and  Triumph , in  which  I shall 
discover  ten  most  secret  Mysteries,  of  which  the  first  shall  concern  the  Mys- 
teries of  the  Microcosm  . . page  149,  “the  extraction  of  which  [Sul- 
phur from  any  Mineral,  or  soft  Metal]  I shall  candidly  and  clearly  teach  in 
that  my  Triumph  of  Pyrotechny , for  its  Conquest  and  Victory  over  all  its 
clamorous  and  railing  Adversaries”;  page  156,  “I  shall  reserve  that  [“the 
Alcoolization  of  Alcalies”]  to  that  part  of  my  Pyrotechny  triumphing , 
which  treats  of  the  Mysteries  of  the  Microcosm”;  and  page  171,  “concern- 
ing the  use  of  which  [more  generally  useful  Medicaments]  I shall  give  in 
writing  brief  and  full  Directions,  Epitomizing  as  it  were  my  next  Tractate 
of  Pyrotechny  Triumphing , and  sending  it  forth  in  single  sheets;  and  as 
nobler  Medicaments  may  be  made  in  quantities,  I shall  do  the  like  by  them, 
which  you  may  confidently  expect,  God  willing,  this  summer.” 

13.  A Treatise  . . . concerning  the  Liquor  [Alcahest]  in  Latin;  which,  accord- 
ing to  Stirk,  Pyrotechny , 35,  “was  chiefly  written,  while  my  tryals  were  in 
the  very  working,  and  which  I purpose  shall  e’re  long  see  the  light.”  See 
No.  8 and  No.  19,  one  of  which  may  be  an  English  version. 


1949]  George  Stirk,  Philosopher  by  Fire  249 

14.  De  Mysteriis  Alcalium.  Mentioned  in  Pyrotechny , 81,  as  “a  . . . Tractate 
. . . which  I purpose  shortly  shall  see  the  light.” 

15.  The  Method  and  Mystery  oj  curing  Diseases.  Mentioned  in  Pyrotechny , 
106,  as  “my  Treatise  . . . which  I intend  very  shortly  to  publish.”  On 
page  109  of  Pyrotechny  Stirk  says  that  he  will  handle  a particular  subject 
in  a “Treatise  of  the  Method  and  Mystery  oj  Medicine which  may  be 
the  same  work. 

C.  Works  attributed  to  others , zvhich  may  have  been  written  by  Stirk 

16.  The  Marrow  oj  Alchemy.  By  Eirenaeus  Philoponos  Philalethes.  First  Part, 
London,  1654;  second  part,  London,  1655.  Ferguson,  of.  cit.y  11.  474,  who 
gives  evidence,  which  seems  conclusive,  that  Stirk  was  really  the  author. 
Wing,  5278,  5279. 

17.  The  Dignity  oj  Kingshif  asserted : in  answer  to  Mr.  Milton's  Readie  and 
Easie  Way  to  establish  a jree  Commonwealth  ...  by  G.S.  ..  . London  . . . 
1660.  In  his  edition  for  the  Facsimile  Text  Society  (No.  54,  1942)  W.  R. 
Parker  argues  for  Stirk  being  the  author,  and  not  George  Searle,  or  Gilbert 
Sheldon.  He  also  (Introduction,  vii — viii)  gives  the  new  title  of  the  re- 
issue of  1661:  “Monarchy  Triumphing  over  Traiterous  Republicans.  . . .” 

18.  Britains  Triumfh  jor  Her  ImfaralleV d Deliverance.  By  G.S.  1660.  Parker 
(of.  cit.y  xii)  also  attributes  this  work  to  Stirk. 

19.  Arcanuniy  or  Secret  oj  the  Immortal  Liquor  Alkahesty  called  I gnis-Aqua. 
By  Eirenaeus  Philaletha.  Is  No.  1 in  Collectanea  Chemica  (London,  1684), 
and  No.  1 in  Collectanea  Chemica  (London,  1893).  Ferguson,  of.  cit.y  1. 
169,  who  says  (11.  1 9 1 ) it  is  not  the  same  as  No.  8 above.  Wing,  5287A. 

20.  Brevis  Manuductio  ad  Rubinum  Coelestem.  By  Eirenaeus  Philaletha.  Fer- 
guson, of.  cit.y  11.  1 91;  he  mentions  there  a German  treatise,  Eine  kurze 
Anleitungy  etc.,  which  seems  to  be  the  same  work,  and  (11.  192)  an  English 
version.  Cf.  Kittredge  11.  136.  Wing,  5290. 

21.  Tons  Chemicae  Philosofhiae.  By  Eirenaeus  Philaletha.  Published  by  Bir- 
rius  in  1668.  Ferguson,  of.  cit .,  11.  1 9 1 ; he  mentions  there  a German 
treatise,  Brunn  der  Chemischen  Wissenschajt,  which  may  be  a translation, 
on  192  an  English  version,  and  on  193  (under  Rifley  Reviv'd)  a chapter 
belonging  to  the  Tons  which  had  been  omitted  by  Birrius.  Wing,  5290. 

22.  Tons  chymicae  Veritatis.  By  Eirenaeus  Philaletha.  Ferguson,  of.  cit.y  11.  191. 

23.  Ars  Metallorum  Metamorfhoseos.  By  Eirenaeus  Philaletha.  Ferguson,  of. 
cit.y  11.  475.  Mentioned  by  Stirk  in  the  Marrow  oj  Alchemy , Second  Part, 
An  Advertisement  to  the  Reader.  Ferguson  elsewhere  (11.  192)  calls  it  De 


250  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [feb. 

M etallorum  Metamorphosi,  and  records  a German  and  an  English  version. 
Wing,  5290. 

24.  Introitus  Apertus  ad  occlusum  Regis  Palatium:  Autore  Anonymo  Philaletha 
Philosopho  . . . publicatus , Cur  ante  Joanne  Langio.  Amstelodami  . . . 1667. 
Ferguson,  op.  cit.,  11.  192,  who  also  mentions  there  the  English  edition, 
1669,  by  William  Cooper  ( Secrets  ReveaVd:  or , an  Open  Entrance  to  the 
Shut-Palace  of  the  King.  Cf.  Wing,  5288),  which  is  not  a retranslation  of 
Lange’s  edition.  Ferguson  also  gives  (11.  192— 193)  what  appears  to  be  a 
French  translation,  and  a French  “explication”  of  it.  Cf.  Kittredge  11.  135. 

25.  Ripley  Reviv'd:  or,  an  Exposition  upon  Sir  George  Ripley's  H ermetico- 
Poetical  works.  . . . Written  by  Eirenaeus  Philalethes  . . . London,  Printed 
. . . for  William  Cooper  . . . 1678.  According  to  Ferguson,  op.  cit.,  11.  193, 
it  contains:  An  exposition  upon  Ripley’s  Epistle  to  King  Edward  IV  [Wing, 
5274]  ; an  exposition  upon  Ripley’s  Preface  [Wing,  5275]  ; an  exposition 
upon  Ripley’s  First  six  Gates  of  the  Compound  of  Alchymie;  Experiments 
for  the  preparation  of  the  Sophie  Mercury  [which  may  be  the  same  as 
No.  6 in  Collectanea  Chemica  (1893),  and  as  Experiences  sur  l' operation 
du  mercure  philosophique,  which  is  mentioned  by  Ferguson,  op.  et  loc. 
cit. ] ; A Breviary  of  Alchemy  [Wing,  5271]  ; An  exposition  upon  Ripley’s 
vision  [Wing,  5276].  Wing,  5286.  Among  the  works  written  by  the  adept, 
Eirenaeus  Philalethes,  which  Stirk  mentions  ( Marrow  of  Alchemy,  First 
Part,  address  To  the  Reader)  were  “a  large  Comment  on  Ripley  his  twelve 
gates,  and  the  Epistle  to  King  Edward”;  the  latter  seems  to  be  the  work 
published  in  Ripley  Reviv'd,  but  the  former  (which  does  not  seem  to  be 
mentioned  by  Ferguson)  is  apparently  not  the  “exposition  on  the  first  six 
gates”  contained  in  Ripley  Reviv'd. 

26.  Opus  Elixeris  Aurifici  et  Argentifci.  Mentioned  by  Stirk  ( Marrow  of  Al- 
chemy, First  Part,  address  To  the  Reader)  as  written  by  Eirenaeus  Phila- 
letha. 

27.  Brevis  via  ad  vitam  longam.  Mentioned  by  Stirk  ( Marrow  of  Alchemy, 
First  Part,  address  To  the  Reader)  as  written  by  Eirenaeus  Philaletha.  Cf. 
Kittredge  11.  136.  Wing,  5290A,  gives  Via  ad  vitam,  1661,  which  may  be 
the  same  work.  The  work  may  also  be  related  to  No.  1 above,  which  has,  as 
an  alternative  title,  “a  short  and  sure  way  to  a long  and  sound  life.”  On  the 
other  hand,  in  the  Second  Part  of  the  Marrow  of  Alchemy,  1655  (An  Ad- 
vertisement to  the  Reader)  Stirk  says  that  a treatise  by  the  “friend”  who 
wrote  the  Marrow,  entitled  “Alchemy  Triumphing,  or  a short  way  to  a 
long  life,”  would  “ere  long  see  the  light.” 

28.  A Commentary  on  Arnolds  Ultimum  T estamentum.  Mentioned  by  Stirk 
(. Marrow  of  Alchemy,  First  Part,  address  To  the  Reader)  as  written  by 
Eirenaeus  Philaletha.  Arnaldus  de  Villanova  may  be  meant;  but,  although 


1949]  George  Stirk,  Philosopher  by  Fire  25  1 

his  works  include  a Testamcntum,  a Testamentum  Novum  and  a Testa- 
mentum  Novissimum,  there  is  no  mention  (in  Ferguson,  of.  cit .,  i.  46)  of 
a Testamentum  Ultimum. 

29.  Cabala  Safientimn , or  An  Exfosition  of  the  Hieroglyf hicks  of  the  Magi. 
Mentioned  by  Stirk  ( Marrozv  of  Alchemy , First  Part,  address  To  the  Read- 
er) as  written  by  Eirenaeus  Philaletha. 

30.  Elenchus  errorum  in  Arte  Chemica  deviantium.  Mentioned  by  Stirk  ( Mar- 
rozv of  Alchemy , First  Part,  address  To  the  Reader)  as  written  by  the 
“friend,”  who  had  also  written  the  Marrozv  of  Alchemy  (No.  16  above). 
In  the  Second  Part  of  the  Marrozv  of  Alchemy , 1655  (An  Advertisement 
to  the  Reader)  Stirk  says  this  work  “will  ere  long  see  the  light.”  Cf.  Kitt- 
redge  11.  1 36. 

31.  Enarratio  Methodica  Trium  Gebri  Medicinarum , in  quibus  continetur 
Lafidis  Philosofhici  V era  Confectioy  Autore  Anonymo  sub  nomine  JEyre- 
naei  Philalethes , natu  Angli , habitatione  Cosmofolitae.  Amstelodami , Afud 
Danielem  Elsevirium , 1678.  Ferguson,  of.  cit.y  11.  191.  Cf.  Wing,  5281, 
Of  us  trifartitumy  1678,  which  may  be  the  same  work,  though  in  5273  he 
gives  Enarratio  Methodicay  1678.  Ferguson  (11.  1 9 1 ) says  it  contains  (on 
page  189):  Vade-Mecum  Philosofhicum  sive  Breve  Manuductorium  ad 
Camfum  Sofhiae  . . . Auctore  Agricola  Rhomaeoy  horum  Arcanorum  vere 
adefto\  and  he  quotes  evidence  (11.  265)  that  Rhomaeus  was  Starkey.  In 
the  Marrozv  of  Alchemy , First  Part,  address  To  the  Reader,  Stirk  says  he 
persuaded  his  “friend,”  who  had  written  the  Marrozvy  to  write  a treatise 
“in  Latine,  entituled,  Breve  Manuductorium  ad  Campum  Sophiae,  which 
concerns  chiefly  Paracelsus  liquor  Alcahest.”  Cf.  Kittredge  11.  136,  where 
it  is  given  as  Brevis  manuductio  ad  camfum  Sofhiae. 

32.  Princifes  four  la  Conduite  de  VOeuvre  hermetique.  Ferguson,  of.  cit.y  11. 

193* 

33.  Philadelfhiay  or  brotherly  lovey  1694.  Wing,  5282  (under  George  Starkey). 


April  Meeting,  1949 

A STATED  Meeting  of  the  Society  was  held,  at  the  invita- 
tion of  Mr.  Augustus  Peabody  Loring,  Jr.,  at  No.  2 
L Gloucester  Street,  Boston,  on  Thursday,  28  April  1949, 
at  a quarter  before  nine  o’clock  in  the  evening,  the  President, 
Augustus  Peabody  Loring,  Jr.,  in  the  chair. 

The  records  of  the  last  Stated  Meeting  were  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

The  President  reported  the  death  on  4 March  1949  of  James 
Rowland  Angell,  a Corresponding  Member. 

The  President,  on  behalf  of  the  Corresponding  Secretary,  re- 
ported the  receipt  of  a letter  from  Edward  Ely  Curtis  accept- 
ing election  to  Resident  Membership  in  the  Society. 

Mr.  John  Otis  Brew  of  Cambridge  was  elected  a Resident 
Member  and  Mr.  Mark  Bortman  of  Newton  was  elected  an 
Associate  Member  of  the  Society. 

The  President  reported  the  recommendation  of  the  Council 
for  the  adoption  of  new  By-Laws  and  stated  that  printed  copies 
were  to  be  sent  to  all  members. 

The  chair  appointed  the  following  committees  in  anticipation 
of  the  Annual  Meeting: 

To  nominate  candidates  for  the  several  offices, — Messrs.  El- 
liott Perkins  and  Fred  Norris  Robinson. 

To  examine  the  Treasurer’s  accounts, — Messrs.  Willard 
Goodrich  Cogswell  and  Arthur  Stanwood  Pier. 

To  arrange  for  the  Annual  Dinner, — Messrs.  Augustus  Pea- 
body Loring,  Jr.,  Samuel  Eliot  Morison  and  Walter  Muir 
Whitehill. 

Mr.  Frederick  Scouller  Allis,  Jr.,  read  a paper  entitled 
aThe  Bingham-Baring  Lands,”  in  which  he  presented  material 
that  has  since  appeared  in  Volumes  36  and  37  of  the  Society’s 
Publications, 


1949]  A 1 7th-Century  Pennacook  Pouch  253 

Mr.  Ernest  S.  Dodge  presented  by  title  the  following  paper: 


A Seventeenth-Century  Pennacook 
Quilled  Pouch 

MOST  of  the  exceptionally  early  and  important  examples  of  New 
England  material  culture,  other  than  archaeological  artifacts, 
are  well  known  to  students  of  the  area,  and  have  been  pub- 
lished. It  is  only  rarely,  nowadays,  that  a specimen  turns  up  that  is  so  old 
and  so  remarkable  that  it  deserves  a paper  to  itself.  Such  a one  has  re- 
cently appeared. 

This  antique,  a small  quill  bag  or  pouch,  was  in  a collection  acquired  a 
few  years  ago  by  the  Society  for  the  Preservation  of  New  England  An- 
tiquities, with  the  estate  at  Indian  Hill,  West  Newbury.1  This  property 
had  been  the  home  of  the  Poore  family  for  nearly  two  hundred  and  fifty 
years  before  it  was  given  to  the  Society. 

Historical  Background 

The  quill  bag  first  attracted  the  attention  of  Dr.  Frank  G.  Speck  when 
he  visited  the  Poore  house  at  Indian  Hill.  At  that  time  it  was  in  a little 
frame  screwed  to  the  wall  of  a small  back  entry.  Also  inside  the  frame 
was  a label,  handprinted  in  faded  ink  on  orange  cardboard,  which  label 
reads: 

PURSE 

Made  on  Indian  Hill 
and  given  to  John  Poore 
1650 

After  negotiating  with  Mr.  William  Sumner  Appleton  of  the  S.  P.  N. 
E.  A.  the  pouch,  with  certain  other  ethnological  specimens,  was  deposited 
with  the  Peabody  Museum  of  Salem.  I removed  it  from  the  frame  and 
found  inside  another,  much  earlier,  label.  This  label  is  written  in  black 
ink  on  heavy  white  paper.  The  condition  of  the  paper  and  the  character 
of  the  handwriting  indicates  considerable  age— how  much,  is  the  ques- 
tion. The  text  of  this  second  label  reads: 

This  purse  was  manufactured  by  the  Indians  and  purchased  of  them  by  my 

1 Since  this  paper  was  written,  the  property  at  Indian  Hill  has  been  returned  to  the 
family,  and  is  now  owned  by  Mr.  Edward  S.  Moseley.  He  has  deposited  the  pouch, 
together  with  other  ethnological  material,  in  the  Peabody  Museum  of  Salem. 


254  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

Grandfather  who  paid  them  with  articles  valued  at  one  dollar.  The  hide  the 
purse  is  made  of  was  dressed  by  them  & the  quills  worked  in  are  said  to  be  those 
of  the  Porcupine — Benjamin  Poore. 

On  seeing  such  a label  one’s  first  reaction  is  that  the  problem  is  easily 
resolved.  All  that  is  necessary  is  to  run  back  the  Poore  family  line  to  Ben- 
jamin and  thence  to  his  grandfather.  Alas,  there  is  an  imp  that  plagues 
the  wishful  thinker.  The  Poore  family  was  prolific  as  well  as  ancient,  and 
the  tribe  of  Benjamin  wras  a considerable  portion  thereof.  Persistent  gene- 
alogical research,  however,  narrowed  the  problem  of  identification  of 
the  label  signer  down  to  one  of  two  Benjamins. 

Before  discussing  the  possibilities  of  these  two  candidates,  let  us  return 
for  a moment  to  the  last  male  Poore  to  dwell  at  Indian  Hill  and  to  the  first 
label  quoted.  BemPerley  Poore  was  born  in  1820  and  died  30  May 
1887.  He  was  a descendant  of  Samuel  Poore  who  settled  in  Newbury  in 
1638.  This  Samuel  was  the  first  Poore  owner  of  Indian  Hill  where  he 
built  a house  about  1650.  From  him  the  direct  line  to  Ben:Perley  runs: 
Samuel,  born  1653,  died  I727>  Samuel,  born  1673,  died  1759;  Benja- 
min, born  1723,  died  1817;  Dr.  Daniel  Noyes  Poore,  born  1758,  died 
1837;  Daniel’s  son,  Col.  Benjamin,  born  in  1797  and  lost  in  the  China 
Sea  in  1853,  was  Ben:Perley’s  father.2  The  early  Benjamin  in  this  line  is 
one  possibility.  However,  Ben:Perley  was  also  descended,  through  other 
families,  from  John  Poore,  brother  of  the  first  Samuel,  who  settled  on  the 
Parker  River  in  1635  and  in  1650  was  granted  some  land  in  the  vicinity 
of  Indian  Hill.  In  one  of  the  histories  of  Essex  County,  under  the  biographi- 
cal sketch  of  Ben:Perley,  it  is  stated  that  “In  1650  John  Poore  purchased 
Indian  Hill  and  the  land  surrounding  it  from  the  Indians.”3  This  is  not 
true  as  the  circumstances  are  described  in  other  works.  Samuel,  the  immi- 
grant, bought  the  land.4 

It  is  my  belief  that  at  one  time  BenrPerley  thought  that  John  was  the 
man  from  whom  the  Poore  name  descended  to  him,  and  that  the  state- 
ment given  above  was  true.  In  his  later  life  he  was  an  active  member  of 
the  Poor-Poore  Family  Association  and  encouraged  the  writing  and  pub- 
lishing of  the  Poore  genealogies.  At  that  time  he  must  have  known  the  cor- 
rect history  of  Indian  Hill.  It  is  a pity  that  his  own  manuscript  on  the  his- 

2 The  Poor-Poore  Family  Reunion  at  Haverhill , September  14,  *887,  84-91. 

3 History  of  Essex  County,  Massachusetts , with  Biographical  Sketches  of  Many  of  its 
Pioneers  and  Prominent  Men , Hamilton  Hurd,  Compiler  (Philadelphia,  1888),  11. 
1873. 

4 John  J.  Currier,  <(Ould  Newbury Historical  and  Biographical  Sketches  (Boston, 
1896),  347-356. 


1949]  A 17th-Century  Pennacook  Pouch  255 


tory  of  the  Poore  family,  together  with  the  original  Indian  deed  to  In- 
dian Hill,  were  destroyed  in  Washington  after  his  death.5 

Ben:Perley  was  a widely  travelled,  wealthy  newspaperman  and  a 
great  collector.  The  curios  of  all  sorts  which  embellish  the  walls  of  the 
rambling  house  at  Indian  Hill  were  mostly  placed  there  at  his  direction  or 
by  his  own  hand.  It  seems  reasonable  to  suppose  that  he  wrote  the  first 
label  quoted  from  memory  and  family  tradition,  assuming  that  the  Ben- 
jamin who  signed  the  old  label  was  the  grandson  of  John. 

Now  to  return  to  the  problem  of  solving  the  identity  of  the  Benjamin 
who  wrote  and  signed  the  second  label.  As  just  mentioned,  from  the 
statement  on  the  first  label  it  might  be  supposed  that  John’s  grandson, 
Benjamin,  was  the  author.  It  may  be,  but  unfortunately  the  signature  on 
the  label  in  no  way  resembles  the  signature  of  this  Benjamin  reproduced 
from  his  will. 

To  be  sure  the  signature  on  his  will  was  written  in  extreme  old  age  and 
would  no  doubt  be  different  from  his  writing  earlier  in  life.  The  differ- 


ence, in  my  opinion,  however,  is  too  great  even  for  this  possibility  and  the 
two,  to  my  mind,  must  be  ascribed  to  different  men. 

The  Benjamin  (1723—1817),  the  great-grandson  of  the  first,  is  next 
considered.  A trip  to  the  Courthouse  in  Salem  brought  to  light  a will 
signed  by  him.  The  writing  more  nearly  resembles  that  on  the  label,  but 
here  again  was  the  age  problem.  Judging  by  the  date,  the  document  was 
signed  by  a very  old,  sick  man  but  a few  hours,  I believe,  before  his  death. 
If  the  label  was  written  by  him,  as  seems  a distinct  possibility  at  present, 
and  granting  the  truth  of  the  information  on  the  label,  the  pouch  was  col- 
lected by  Samuel  (1653—1727),  son  of  the  immigrant. 

This  would  date  it  about  twenty-five  to  forty  years  later  than  the  first 
label  states ; but,  nevertheless,  still  a very  early  piece,  probably  made  in  the 
last  quarter  of  the  seventeenth  century. 

Currier’s  History  of  Newbury  states  that  Indians  were  still  living  in  the 
vicinity  of  Indian  Hill  in  1681  so  the  pouch  could  have  readily  been  col- 
lected by  the  Samuel  to  whom  the  evidence  points. 

As  the  extent  of  the  Pennacook  Confederacy  has  been  worked  out  by 
Johnson,  it  is  safe  to  assume  that  these  Indians  were  politically  associated 
with  the  Pennacook  and  the  pouch  is  representative  of  their  material  cul- 
ture.6 


5 Sidney  Perley,  The  Indian  Land  Titles  of  Essex  County , Massachusetts  (Salem, 
1912),  41. 

6 Frederick  Johnson,  “The  Indians  of  New  Hampshire,”  Affalachia , No.  89  (June, 
1940),  3-15* 


256  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 


Technical  Description 

This  well  preserved  little  pouch,  made  of  dark  tanned  deerskin  orna- 
mented with  porcupine  quills,  is  a delight  to  the  eye  of  any  admirer  of 
aboriginal  art.  The  lower  part  of  the  bag  is  flat  and  made  of  two  pieces  of 
leather,  8.5  cm.  square,  sewed  together  along  either  side  and  the  bot- 
tom. This  is  the  part  of  the  bag  that  is  highly  decorated.  To  the  upper 
edge  of  the  bottom  section  there  are  sewn  two  more  flexible  pieces  of  simi- 
lar leather.  These  are  sewn  together  along  either  side  and  deepen  the  bag 
about  6 cm.  All  seam  sewing  is  apparently  done  with  sinew. 

Approximately  4 mm.  from  the  upper  edge  there  are,  on  both  sides, 
six  slashes  each  about  12  mm.  long.  Through  these  holes  run  two  draw- 
strings. The  drawstrings  enter  from  opposite  sides,  circle  the  bag,  and 
are  lashed  to  themselves  some  2.5  cm.  from  the  edges  of  the  bag.  Beyond 
the  lashing  the  ends  extend  about  14  cm.  These  ends,  two  on  either  side, 
are  wrapped  with  quills  for  about  8 cm.  of  their  length.  On  each  side  of 
the  pouch,  at  the  junction  of  the  side  seams  and  the  seams  between  the 
upper  and  lower  parts,  there  are  attached  two  leather  thongs  wrapped 
with  quills.  Along  the  bottom  edge  of  the  bag  there  are  a dozen  dangles 
spaced  about  5 mm.  apart.  These  are  apparently  of  some  kind  of  cord, 
whether  native  or  trade  I could  not  determine,  wrapped  with  quills  for 
the  distance  of  1 cm.  The  ends  of  all  the  dangles,  as  well  as  the  quill- 
wrapped  drawstrings  and  decorative  thongs,  all  terminate  in  tin  cones  each 
holding  a bunch  of  hair.  Two  distinct  kinds  of  hair  were  used.  One  kind 
is  rather  soft  and  brown,  probably  deerhair;  the  other  is  stiff  and  grayish 
and  may  be  pig  or  horsehair,  and  looks  as  though  it  was  once  dyed  blue. 
The  two  varieties  of  hair  are  paired  on  the  ends  of  the  drawstrings  and 
decorative  thongs  so  that  each  pair  of  strings  has  a bunch  of  hair  of  each 
kind. 

The  final,  and  perhaps  the  most  striking,  structural  feature  of  this  bag 
are  two  tabs  of  leather  shaped  like  beaver  tails,  6.7  cm.  and  7 cm.  long  re- 
spectively and  2.5  cm.  wide,  sewed  to  the  top  at  the  seam  on  each  side. 
Each  tab  is  perforated  with  seven  lozenge-shaped  holes.  The  center  hole, 
which  is  5 x 10  mm.,  is  flanked  by  three  smaller  holes  above  and  below 
which  average  4x5  cm.  These  tabs  serve  no  obvious  utilitarian  purpose 
and,  together  with  the  thongs  and  drawstrings,  must  be  considered  or- 
namental. They  do,  nevertheless,  indicate  a significance  which  will  be 
discussed  later. 


% % * JT  J*-  ft-  'a.  9*  a,  5*  sL  b.  ? 1*'  3 


Seventeenth  century  Indian  pouch  in  the  Peabody  Museum  oj  Salem. 
Side  showing  designs  similar  to  those  on  wampum  belts. 


Seventeenth  century  Indian  pouch  in  the  Peabody  Museum  oj  Salem. 
Side  showing  linear  decoration  a, id  simplified  double  curve. 


257 


1949]  A 1 7th-Century  Pennacook  Pouch 

Decoration 

The  quill  wrapping  on  the  drawstrings,  decorative  thongs,  and  dangles, 
has  already  been  mentioned.  The  quills  of  this  wrapping  are  white, 
orange,  black,  and  light  blue  and  are  applied  with  a technique  not  figured 
or  described  in  Orchard.7  It  is  difficult  to  discover,  however,  exactly  the 
technique  used  without  unwrapping  a section,  which  I am  reluctant  to  do. 

Along  each  seam  of  the  lower  part  of  the  pouch  is  a row  of  rather  squar- 
ish white  porcelain  beads  which  average  about  2 mm.  in  length.  These 
are  the  only  beads  on  the  specimen. 

The  principal  decoration  on  each  face  of  the  lower  section  of  the  bag 
consists  of  the  quill  work.  These  quills  also  are  colored  black,  orange,  light 
blue,  and  white.  Undoubtedly  all  the  colors  showing,  and  there  may  have 
been  others,  are  faded  and  mellowed  by  time. 

All  of  the  quills  are  attached  to  the  leather  by  one  of  two  techniques. 
Most  of  the  quills  are  flattened  and  put  on  by  stitching  them  through  the 
leather  and  folding  them  back  on  themselves  and  stitching  again.  This 
gives  a series  of  triangles  so  that  the  technique  superficially  resembles  the 
rather  common  method  of  folding  back  and  forth  over  two  pieces  of  sinew 
thread  described  by  Orchard.8  Most  of  the  quills  attached  by  this  means 
are  in  rows  about  2 mm.  wide  but  for  filling  in  a few  places  the  width  in- 
creases to  6 mm.  The  other  technique  used  is  the  method  described  by 
Orchard  wherein  the  quills  are  twisted  and  sewn  through  the  leather  be- 
tween each  twist.9  This  technique  produces  a fine  hair-like  line  and  is  used 
for  borders. 

The  designs  on  this  specimen  are  of  especial  interest  to  the  student  of 
aboriginal  art  in  northeastern  North  America.  One  face  of  the  bag  is  out- 
lined with  a border  of  quill  work  which  bulges  slightly  toward  the  middle 
of  each  side.  Within  the  border  two  wide  bands  extend  diagonally  from 
corner  to  corner  across  the  bag  forming  a large  St.  Andrews  Cross.  The 
figures  within  the  bands  are  geometrical  and  are  somewhat  reminiscent  of 
some  to  be  found  in  wampum  belts.  On  opposite  sides  of  each  arm  of  the 
cross  are  hook  figures  bent  back  towards  the  corners.  These  figures  are 
commonly  found,  either  singly  or  in  pairs,  in  Iroquois  and  early  Chippewa 
art,  and  very  commonly  in  the  Wabanaki  area. 

7 William  C.  Orchard,  “The  Technique  of  Porcupine  Quill  Decoration  Among  the 
North  American  Indians,”  C ontribution  From  The  Museum  of  the  American  In- 
dian Heye  Foundation,  iv  (New  York,  1916),  No.  1. 

8 Id.,  14—18. 

9 Id.,  41-42,  Fig.  45. 


258  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

The  other  face  of  the  bag  is  covered  with  parallel  rows  of  straight,  wavy, 
zigzag,  and  curved  lines  so  familiar  in  the  bead  and  quill  work  from  the 
Iroquois  east  and  north  as  far  as  Indians  live ; and  most  recently  used  by 
the  Naskapi  in  their  painted  work  on  caribou  skin.  Beginning  at  each  out- 
side edge  the  borders  are  identical  and  meet  in  the  middle  with  two  rows 
of  double  curves. 

The  presence  of  this  true  double  curve  is  particularly  significant  as,  so  far 
as  I know,  this  is  its  earliest  ethnological  representation.  The  double-curve 
on  the  pouch  is  in  its  most  simple  and  unelaborated  form.  It  corresponds 
exactly  to  the  simplest  form  illustrated  by  Speck  in  “The  Double-Curve 
Motive  in  Northeastern  Algonkian  Art.”1  In  the  same  work  identical 
forms  are  shown  in  examples  from  the  Malecite2  and  the  Micmac.3  Speci- 
mens of  Naskapi  material  examined  also  show  this  simple  form  occurring 
frequently.  Most  of  the  Penobscot  and  Micmac  double-curve  designs  are 
featured  by  more  complex  treatment,  but  in  Penobscot  Man 4 Speck  shows 
a Penobscot  pouch  decorated  with  quite  similar  elemental  double-curves 
in  moosehair  embroidery.  Barbeau  has  conclusively  shown  the  relation- 
ship between  the  elaborate  double-curve  designs  and  French  leather  and 
embroidery  patterns,5  but  as  French  influence  on  the  lower  Merrimac,  in 
the  last  half  of  the  seventeenth  century,  was  probably  slight,  the  presence 
of  the  double-curve  motif  on  this  bag  lends  some  weight  to  the  evidence 
which  indicates  that  the  motif  in  its  most  simple  form  may  possibly  be  an 
indigenous  aboriginal  origin  as  Speck  argued  for  many  years.6 

Conclusions 

In  conclusion  this  pouch,  in  general  form  and  decorative  embellishment, 
is  surprisingly  similar  to  comparable  bags  made  about  two  hundred  years 
later  by  other  tribes  to  the  north  and  east  of  the  Merrimac.  The  Penob- 
scot bag  figured  by  Speck  and  mentioned  previously  is  very  similar  in  form 
as  well  as  decoration.  A Micmac  pouch  in  the  Peabody  Museum  of  Salem 

1 Frank  G.  Speck,  “The  Double-Curve  Motive  in  Northeastern  Algonkian  Art,” 
Canada  Department  of  Mines , Geological  Survey , Memoirs , xlii.  Fig.  2. 

2 Id.y  Fig.  10. 

3 Id.y  Fig.  1 1. 

4 Frank  G.  Speck,  Penobscot  Man  (Philadelphia,  1940),  129,  Fig.  51. 

5 Marius  Barbeau,  “The  Native  Races  of  Canada,”  Transactions  of  The  Royal  So- 
ciety of  Canada y Third  Series,  XXI,  Sec.  11  (1927). 

6 Frank  G.  Speck,  “The  Double-Curve  Motive  in  Northeastern  Algonkian  Art,” 
passimy  p.  17.  “Indian  Art  Handicraft  of  Eastern  Canada,”  School  Arts , xliii 
(April,  1944),  266-270. 


1949]  A 1 7th-Century  Pennacook  Pouch  259 

is  in  the  same  tradition;  and  Montagnais  and  Naskapi  pouches  are  even 
closer  in  form.  There  is  an  almost  identical  hag  in  the  Museum  of  the 
American  Indian,  attributed  by  Skinner  to  the  Iroquois.7  This  Iroquois 
bag  is  much  larger  than  our  Pennacook  specimen,  lacks  the  four  groups 
of  thongs  at  the  sides,  but  has  the  beaver  tail  shaped  ornaments  and  also  is 
decorated  with  the  same  type  of  opaque  white  glass  beads,  metal  jinglers, 
and  dyed  deer  hair.  One  of  the  most  striking  features  of  similarity  with  the 
Naskapi  is  the  presence  of  the  four  groups  of  decorative  thongs.  These  are 
attached  to  some  of  the  pouches  as  wrell  as  the  beaded  neck  charms  worn  by 
the  Indian  hunters  of  Labrador.  In  his  Naskafi  Speck  devotes  several  pages 
to  the  symbolism  and  magical  significance  of  this  form.8  The  attachments 
symbolize  the  legs  of  animals  and  the  entire  pouch  or  charm  is  a repre- 
sentation of  the  animal  form  to  insure  good  luck  in  hunting.  This  same 
feature  of  symbolical  legs  is  found  among  both  the  Penobscot  and  Mic- 
mac  but  with  no  explanation,  so  far  as  I know,  as  to  the  reason  for  such 
attachments.  On  the  basis  of  the  presence  of  the  thongs  one  could  also 
speculate  interestingly  on  the  purpose  of  the  beaver  tail  shaped  ornaments, 
but  there  is  not  sufficient  evidence  from  other  tribes  to  justify  doing  so. 

The  interesting  fact  brought  out  by  this  specimen  is  that  it  is  so  typical 
of,  and  shows  strong  association  with,  the  nomadic  hunters  of  the  North- 
east rather  than  with  the  agricultural  peoples  of  southern  New  England. 
The  discovery  of  this  pouch  also  encourages  us  to  seek  further  in  our  old 
houses  for  early  Indian  material  which  has  managed  to  survive  the  han- 
dling of  a dozen  generations,  the  avariciousness  of  insects,  and  that  un- 
happy New  England  virtue— the  spring  house  cleaning. 


7 Alanson  Skinner,  “An  Antique  Tobacco-pouch  of  the  Iroquois,”  Indian  Notes  and 
Monographs , Museum  of  the  American  Indian  Heye  Foundation,  n (New  York, 
1919-1920),  107—108. 

8 Frank  G.  Speck,  Naskapi  (Norman,  Oklahoma,  1935),  227-230. 


Annual  Meeting 

November,  1949 

THE  Annual  Meeting  of  the  Society  was  held  at  the 
Algonquin  Club,  No.  217  Commonwealth  Avenue,  Bos- 
ton, on  Monday,  21  November  1949,  at  a quarter  after 
six  o’clock  in  the  evening,  the  President,  Augustus  Peabody 
Loring,  Jr.,  in  the  chair. 

With  the  consent  of  those  present,  the  reading  of  the  minutes 
of  the  last  Stated  Meeting  was  omitted. 

Mr.  Francis  Whiting  Hatch,  of  Wayland,  and  Mr.  Lu- 
cius James  Knowles,  of  Boston,  were  elected  Resident  Mem- 
bers of  the  Society. 

The  Treasurer  reported  the  terms  of  the  will  of  the  late  Al- 
bert Matthews,  a Resident  Member  of  the  Society  for  fifty 
years  and  its  Editor  for  twenty-seven,  and  the  Society  voted  to 
accept  the  bequest  mentioned  in  the  will. 

The  Treasurer  submitted  his  annual  report  as  follows: 

Report  of  the  Treasurer 

In  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  the  By-laws,  the  Treasurer 
submits  his  Annual  Report  for  the  year  ending  14  November  1949. 


Statement  of  Assets  and  Funds,  14  November  1949 


ASSETS 

Cash: 

Income 

$14,826.48 

Loan  to  Principal 

i3->294-°6 

$1,532.42 

Investments  at  Book  Value: 

Bonds  (Market  value  $155,768.69) 

$155,830.62 

Stocks  (Market  Value  $112,509.38) 

96,849.96 

Savings  Bank  Deposit 

3.376.43 

$256,057.01 

Total  Assets 

$236,597.52 

1949]  Report  of  the  Treasurer 

FUNDS 

Funds 

Unexpended  Income 
Total  Funds 


261 

$236,597.52 

20,991.91 

$257,589.43 


Income  Cash  Receipts  and  Disbursements 


Balance,  14  November  1948 

RECEIPTS: 

Interest  $5,048.15 

Dividends  5,91;  5-85 

Income  on  Albert  Matthews  Fund  1,244.01 

Annual  Assessments  81 0.00 

Sales  of  Publications  140.50 

Contributions  40. 00 

Total  Receipts  of  Income 


DISBURSEMENTS: 

New  England  Quarterly 
Editor’s  Salary 
Secretarial  Expenses 
Annual  Dinner 

Copies  of  Forty  Acres , the  Story  oj  the  Bishof 
Huntington  House 
Storage  Charges 
Publications 

Portrait  of  Francis  Parkman 
Auditing  Services 
Notices  and  Expenses  of  Meetings 
General  Expenses 

Postage,  Office  Supplies  and  Miscellaneous 
Binding  Books 
Safe  Deposit  Box 

Interest  on  Henry  H.  Edes  Memorial  Fund  added 
to  Principal 

Interest  on  Sarah  Louisa  Edes  Fund  added  to  Prin- 
cipal 

Interest  on  Albert  Matthews  Fund  added  to  Prin- 
cipal 

Total  Disbursements  of  Income 
Balance  of  Income,  14  November  1949 


$3,000.00 

1,500.00 

900.00 
616.70 

513.00 
415.72 
226.30 

200.00 

125.00 

123.00 
1 16.90 

98.66 

74.00 

24.00 

417.46 

L489-33 

38946 


$1 1,857.50 


$13,198.51 

$25,056.01 


IQ.229.53 

$14,826.48 


James  M.  Hunnewell 

T reasurer 


262 


The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [nov. 


Report  of  the  Auditing  Committee 

The  undersigned,  a committee  appointed  to  examine  the  accounts  of  the 
Treasurer  for  the  year  ended  14  November  1949,  have  attended  to  their 
duty  by  employing  Messrs.  Stewart,  Watts  and  Bollong,  Public  Account- 
ants and  Auditors,  who  have  made  an  audit  of  the  accounts  and  examined 
the  securities  on  deposit  in  Box  91  in  the  New  England  Trust  Company. 

We  herewith  submit  their  report,  which  has  been  examined  and  ac- 
cepted by  the  Committee. 

Willard  G.  Cogswell 
Arthur  S.  Pier 

Auditing  Committee 

The  Treasurer’s  report  was  accepted  and  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Publication. 

On  behalf  of  the  committee  appointed  to  nominate  officers  for 
the  ensuing  year  the  following  list  was  presented ; and  a ballot 
having  been  taken,  these  gentlemen  were  unanimously  elected: 

President  Augustus  Peabody  Loring,  Jr. 

Vice-Presidents  Hon.  Robert  Walcott 
Samuel  Eliot  Morison 

Recording  Secretary  Robert  Earle  Moody 

C orresfonding  Secretary  Zechariah  Chafee,  Jr. 

Treasurer  James  Melville  Hunnewell 

Registrar  Robert  Dickson  Weston 

Member  of  the  Council  for  Three  Y ears  Robert  Dickson  Weston 

The  Treasurer  moved  the  adoption  of  the  new  Suggested  By- 
Laws,  which  had  been  unanimously  approved  by  the  Council, 
and  of  which  a printed  copy  had  been  sent  to  each  member  with 
a statement  indicating  his  status  under  the  proposed  provisions. 
The  Suggested  By-Laws  abolished  all  ancestral  qualifications 
for  membership,  set  a zone  for  Resident  Membership,  created 
a new  class  of  Non-Resident  Members,  abolished  Associate 
Membership,  this  class  being  merged  into  the  others,  and  made 
certain  changes  in  Corresponding  Membership.  After  an  extend- 
ed debate,  in  which  the  opposition  was  vigorously  led  by  Messrs. 
Stephen  Willard  Phillips  and  James  Duncan  Phillips,  a ballot 


1949]  Report  of  the  Council  263 

was  had,  in  which  thirty-six  voted  in  favor  of  the  motion  and 
thirteen  against.  The  President  therefore  declared  the  motion 
lost,  since  the  affirmative  vote  was  less  than  the  three-quarters  of 
all  the  members  present  at  the  meeting,  as  required  by  the  exist- 
ing By-Laws. 

After  the  meeting  was  dissolved,  dinner  was  served.  The 
guests  of  the  Society  were  Messrs.  Robert  Greenhalgh  Albion, 
Arthur  Stanton  Burnham,  Wendell  Stanwood  Hadlock,  Wil- 
liam Henry  Harrison,  Harold  A.  Larrabee,  William  Caleb 
Loring  and  David  McKibbin.  The  Reverend  Henry  Wilder 
Foote  said  grace. 

After  dinner  the  Annual  Report  of  the  Council  was  read  by 
Mr.  Zechariah  Chafee,  Jr. 

Report  of  the  Council 

THE  year  has  been  uneventful.  The  usual  stated  meetings,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  annual  meeting  and  dinner,  have  been  held — those  in 
December  and  February  at  the  Club  of  Odd  Volumes  and  in  April  at  the 
home  of  our  President  as  his  happy  guests. 

Seven  new  members  have  been  chosen  since  our  last  report,  three  at  the 
last  annual  meeting. 

Resident: 

Edward  Ely  Curtis 
Raymond  Sanger  Wilkins 
Waldron  Phoenix  Belknap,  Jr. 

Henry  Hornblower,  II 
John  Otis  Brew 

Associate: 

Mark  Bortman 

C orresfonding : 

Carl  Bridenbaugh 

Death  has  taken  six  men  during  the  past  year,  three  Resident  Mem- 
bers, one  Associate  Member,  and  two  Corresponding  Members,  and  we 
learned  belatedly  of  the  loss  of  a Corresponding  Member  in  the  year  be- 
fore. They  were  all  ripe  in  years  and  had  been  long  on  our  rolls. 

Allston  Burr,  Resident,  1932,  died  18  January  1949  in  his  eighty- 


264  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [nov. 

fourth  year.  Investment  banker,  Overseer  of  Harvard  and  a generous 
donor.  He  gave  his  time  and  his  delightful  humor  to  the  task  of  reviewing 
our  finances. 

Samuel  Chester  Clough,  Resident,  1913,  died  1 September  1949, 
aged  seventy-six.  After  being  a draftsman  for  the  Boston  Edison  Com- 
pany for  thirty-six  years,  he  retired  not  tired,  for  he  then  served  the  na- 
tion four  years  in  the  drafting  division  of  the  Charlestown  Navy  Yard. 
He  was  much  interested  in  Boston  genealogy  and  history,  contributing 
several  papers  illustrated  with  his  own  maps  showing  early  ownership  of 
real  estate  in  the  town. 

George  Frederick  Robinson,  Resident,  1933,  died  19  May  1949 
at  the  age  of  eighty-eight.  Historian  and  beautifier  of  Watertown. 

Eldon  Revare  James,  Associate,  1938,  died  2 January  1949,  aged 
seventy-three.  Lawyer,  law  teacher,  law  librarian  at  Cincinnati  and  Har- 
vard Law  Schools  and  then  at  the  Library  of  Congress,  adviser  to  the 
King  of  Siam  and  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Siam.  He  was  devoted 
to  legal  history  as  an  officer  of  the  Ames  Foundation,  and  his  spadework 
on  the  Pynchon  Diary  will  eventually  bear  fruit  in  its  publication. 

William  Logan  Rodman  Gifford,  Corresponding,  1906,  died 
22  June  1948  in  his  eighty-eighth  year;  only  two  men  chosen  earlier 
still  survive.  Librarian  in  the  public  libraries  of  New  Bedford  and  Cam- 
bridge until  1904,  and  then  of  the  St.  Louis  Mercantile  Library  Associ- 
ation. 

Marcus  Wilson  Jernegan,  Corresponding,  1926,  died  19  Feb- 
ruary 1949  in  his  seventy-seventh  year.  Teacher  of  American  history  at 
the  University  of  Chicago  for  thirty  years  and  author  of  important  books 
on  colonial  America. 

James  Rowland  Angell,  Corresponding,  1929,  died  4 March 
1949  in  his  eightieth  year.  Psychologist,  teacher  at  the  University  of 
Chicago,  and  then  like  his  father  university  president,  guiding  Yale  for 
sixteen  years,  and  yet  a friend  of  Harvard,  lightening  the  solemnity  of 
the  Harvard  Tercentenary  by  his  kindly  wit. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Publication. 

Mr.  Robert  Greenhalgh  Albion,  Gardiner  Professor  of 
Oceanic  History  and  Affairs,  Harvard  University,  then  ad- 
dressed the  Society  and  its  guests. 


December  Meeting,  1949 

A STATED  Meeting  of  the  Society  was  held  at  the  Club  of 
Odd  Volumes,  No.  77  Mount  Vernon  Street,  Boston,  on 
*■  Thursday,  22  December  1949,  at  three  o’clock  in  the 
afternoon,  the  President,  Augustus  Peabody  Loring,  Jr.,  in 
the  chair. 

The  records  of  the  Annual  Meeting  in  November  were  read 
and  approved. 

At  the  request  of  the  President,  Mr.  Whitehill  read  a copy 
of  the  minutes  of  the  meeting  of  the  Congress  of  Historians  of 
Mexico  and  the  United  States  at  Monterey,  Nuevo  Leon,  Mexi- 
co, on  the  occasion  of  the  presentation  of  an  oil  portrait  of  Fran- 
cis Parkman,  copied  at  the  expense  of  the  Society  from  an  origi- 
nal owned  by  the  St.  Botolph  Club  in  Boston. 

The  President  reported  the  death  on  14  December  1949  of 
Waldron  Phoenix  Belknap,  Jr.,  a Resident  Member. 

The  Recording  Secretary,  on  behalf  of  the  Corresponding  Sec- 
retary, reported  the  receipt  of  letters  from  Mr.  Francis  Whit- 
ing Hatch,  of  Wayland,  and  Mr.  Lucius  James  Knowles,  of 
Boston,  accepting  Resident  Membership,  and  from  Mr.  Wen- 
dell Stanwood  Hadlock,  of  Rockland,  Maine,  accepting  Cor- 
responding Membership  in  the  Society. 

The  Reverend  Palfrey  Perkins  read  a paper  entitled: 

Fund  Raising  in  the  1750’s 

IT  sometimes  seems  today  as  if  everybody  were  engaged  in  fund  rais- 
ing. It  is  a business  by  and  of  itself  like  banking  or  manufacturing  or 
retailing  or  exporting.  Schools  and  colleges  and  hospitals  and  health 
campaigns  and  community  chests  and  religious  organizations  without 
number  are  busy  raising  funds.  Every  one  of  us  here  has  his  involvements 
on  either  the  asking  or  the  giving  end.  Books  are  written  about  fund  rais- 
ing. It  has  its  own  vocabulary:  the  “approach,”  the  “prospect,”  the  “fol- 
low-up,” “special  gifts,”  “donors,”  etc.  Its  techniques  are  varied  and  in- 
tricate. It  has  a basic  philosophy.  Statisticians,  sociologists,  and  economists 
are  constantly  examining  and  analyzing  the  process  and  the  problems  it 
faces  in  the  present  moment  of  history.  In  all  its  elaborate  ramifications,  it 


266  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

is  a phenomenon  of  the  modern  age.  But  in  its  simple  essentials  it  has  al- 
ways gone  on.  People  have  been  fund  raising  more  or  less  since  the  world 
began.  So  it  went  on  in  Boston  in  the  1750’s.  And  it  seemed  to  me  that 
we  might  get  some  amusement,  as  well  as  information,  by  looking  back 
two  hundred  years  at  the  activities  of  a comparatively  small  number  of 
people  in  Boston  whose  project  was  the  rebuilding  of  the  King’s  Chapel, 
“the  building  to  be  of  Stone  and  to  cost  £25,000  in  Bills  of  Credit  of  the 
old  Tenor.”  The  eventual  result  was  the  present  King’s  Chapel,  a noble 
and  beautiful  sanctuary  which,  though  never  actually  completed  according 
to  the  plans  of  Peter  Harrison,  was  beautified  and  finished  for  use  at  a cost 
of  £7405  sterling. 

The  first  requirement  in  fund  raising  is  an  impressive  list  of  names— a 
distinguished  sponsorship.  This  was  not  lacking  in  the  King’s  Chapel 
project.  At  a meeting  on  21  October  1740,  “.  . . This  Vestry  requested 
the  favour  of  Wm.  Shirley  Esq.  one  of  our  Wardens  to  draw  up  the  pre- 
amble to  a subscription  paper  wh  is  to  be  presented  to  such  well-disposed 
persons  as  are  willing  to  contribute  towards  rebuilding  ye  King’s  Chapel 
. . . wch  Mr.  Shirley  undertook  and  is  to  be  laid  before  ye  Vestry  at  their 
next  meeting.”  Wm.  Shirley,  born  in  England  in  1693,  had  come  to  this 
country  in  1734  and  was  practicing  law  in  Boston.  By  the  time  he  got  the 
subscription  under  way  early  in  1741  he  had  been  elevated,  after  the  re- 
moval of  Belcher,  to  the  office  of  governor— an  office  which  he  filled  with 
distinction  for  fifteen  years  lively  with  the  stirring  events  of  the  French 
and  Indian  wars.  A contemporary  wrote  of  him,  “I  must  do  him  the  Jus- 
tice to  say  I think  him  a good  Governor.  And  altho  his  not  being  of  the 
same  profession  in  Religion  with  the  Body  of  this  People  may  (be)  at- 
tended with  Inconvenience  yet  I am  not  apprehensive  that  he  will  ever 
use  his  Power  to  oppress  us  on  that  or  any  other  account.”  The  fact  is  that 
throughout  his  career  he  was  staunchly  and  even  vigorously  devoted  to  his 
church.  So  in  this  matter  of  the  subscription  paper  he  promptly  associated 
with  himself  other  men  of  importance  whose  names  would  carry  weight. 
One  of  these  was  Henry  Frankland,  Esq.,  later  to  become  Sir  Harry  and 
a figure  of  romantic  legend,  at  this  time  Collector  of  the  Port  of  Boston. 
Another  was  Peter  Faneuil,  Esq.,  even  then  building  his  gift  to  the  town 
of  a public  market-place  and  hall.  He  was  a vestryman  of  Trinity  but  took 
a kindly  and  generous  interest  in  the  mother  church.  Shirley  headed  the 
list  with  a subscription  of  £100  sterling.  Frankland  followed  with  £50 
sterling.  Among  the  eleven  other  names  of  importance  on  the  list  was  that 
of  Charles  Apthorp  who,  when  he  died,  was  called  by  Reverend  Jonathan 
Mayhew  “a  merchant  of  the  first  rank  on  the  continent.”  His  subscrip- 


1949]  Fund  Raising  in  the  1750’s  267 

tion  was  £200  of  the  old  tenor.  None  of  this  money  was  paid  in.  It  was,  as 
modern  fund  raisers  would  say,  “in  pledges.”  First  payments  were  to  be 
made  when  £10,000  had  been  subscribed,  but  that  amount  was  not  fully 
subscribed  and,  as  the  old  record  in  the  King’s  Chapel  archives  puts  it,  “a 
Neglect  to  prosecute  the  affair  with  suitable  Vigour,  the  Death  of  the 
Treasurer,  which  soon  after  followed  and  from  whose  Abilities  consider- 
able expectations  had  been  found,  put  a Damp  upon  the  good  Design  and 
occasioned  its  being  laid  aside  for  some  Time.”  Other  fund  raisers  through 
the  years  have  known  this  experience  of  a “Damp  upon  the  good  Design” ! 

Noting  the  death  of  Peter  Faneuil,  it  may  be  worth  while  following  up 
the  long  and  litigious  sequel.  For  when  the  subscription  was  opened  some 
years  later  under  the  energetic  leadership  of  a real  “go-getter”  in  the  per- 
son of  Henry  Caner,  who  became  Rector  in  1747  and  of  whom  much 
more  later,  it  appeared  that  Benjamin  Faneuil,  Peter’s  brother  and  execu- 
tor, had  no  intention  of  fulfilling  his  brother’s  pledge.  He  was 

handsomely  asked  for  his  brother’s  subscription  to  whom  he  wras  Executor  but 
he  refused  to  pay  it,  however  the  Church  Wardens  were  desired  to  wait  upon 
him  once  more  wh  they  did  and  before  witness  demanded  his  first  Payment  and 
left  a Coppy  of  their  Demand  in  Writing.  As  he  absolutely  refused  Payment  the 
committee  after  previous  consultation  of  Gentn  learned  in  the  Law  commenced 
suit  against  him  in  the  Name  of  the  Wardens  for  recovery  of  his  said  Brothers 
subscription. 

For  nearly  four  years  this  vexatious  contest  went  on  in  the  courts  until  on 
30  May  1751,  “The  Judges  of  the  Superior  Court  gave  Judgment  in 
Favour  of  King’s  Chapel  . . . and  therein  established  the  right  of  the 
Church  Wardens  to  sue  for  the  Church’s  Dues.  . . Three  of  the  Judges 
viz:  Saltonstall,  Lines  and  Cushing  gave  for  the  Chapel  Mr.  Sewall  only 
dissented.”  Two  weeks  later  on  a Thursday  when  the  church  wardens 
waited  on  Mr.  Faneuil  to  know  whether  he  would  settle  the  matter  forth- 
with “without  further  dispute  in  the  Law,”  he  asked  them  to  wait  till  the 
following  Monday  so  that  he  might  consult  his  lawyers.  And  on  the  Mon- 
day Mr.  Boutineau,  Faneuil’s  lawyer,  wraited  on  Charles  Apthorp,  Treas- 
urer to  the  Committee,  and  “engaged  to  pay  the  Whole  Money  demanded 
without  further  dispute.”  In  the  final  supplementary  list  of  subscribers  after 
the  fund  raising  was  finished,  this  sum  of  £186  12 s 14 d wrung  by  due 
process  of  law  out  of  an  unwilling  executor  is  euphemistically  if  inaccurate- 
ly set  down  as  “Benj.  Faneuil’s  donation”  \ 

This  digression  has  brought  us  several  years  ahead  of  our  fund-raising 
story.  We  must  return  to  1747  when  a new  personality  came  into  the  pic- 
ture, a man  whose  energy  and  vigor  infused  the  whole  project  with  new 


268  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

life.  This  was  Henry  Caner  who  was  inducted  Rector  in  April,  1747, 
and  within  six  months  had  taken  on— over  and  above  his  duties  as  pastor 
and  preacher— the  enthusiastic  work  of  fund  raising. 

He  is  worth  looking  at  with  some  deliberation,  for  he  spent  twenty- 
eight  years  at  King’s  Chapel,  and  his  loyalty  to  Church  and  King  brought 
his  gray  hairs  in  sorrow  to  flight  with  the  King’s  troops,  and  his  very  char- 
acter to  despite  among  the  patriot  population  of  Boston.  And  yet  it  was 
largely  his  energy  and  taste,  and  practical  ability  as  a fund  raiser,  that  made 
possible  and  actual  the  noble  edifice  which  still  to  this  day  ought  to  perpetu- 
ate his  memory.  Born  in  England,  Henry  Caner  came  to  this  country  as 
a boy.  His  father  built  the  first  college  and  rector’s  house  at  New  Haven, 
and  he  himself  graduated  from  Yale  College  in  1724.  This  means  that  he 
must  have  shared  in  all  the  excitement  over  Timothy  Cutler’s  defection  to 
the  Church  of  England  which  so  startled  the  Church  of  New  England. 
And  it  means,  too,  that  he  must  have  been,  so  to  speak,  on  Cutler’s  side  and 
therefore  have  looked  askance  on  Jonathan  Edwards  who,  as  first  tutor, 
practically  ran  Yale  College  for  two  years,  after  Cutler’s  departure  to  be- 
come the  first  Rector  of  Christ  Church  in  Boston.  At  any  rate,  young 
Caner  went  to  study  theology  at  Stratford,  Connecticut,  with  the  Rev- 
erend Samuel  Johnson  who  had  been  his  college  tutor.  Too  young  to  be 
ordained,  he  assisted  Johnson  as  catechist  and  schoolmaster  in  the  neigh- 
boring town  of  Fairfield.  Of  him  his  preceptor  wrote  to  the  Secretary  of 
the  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel,  “Mr.  Caner  takes  a great  deal  of 
pains  to  very  good  purpose  and  will  I don’t  doubt  prove  a very  worthy 
man.”  In  1727  he  set  out  for  England  to  take  his  holy  orders  and  returned 
at  once  as  Missionary  of  the  honorable  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel 
to  Fairfield,  where  he  remained  for  twenty-two  laborious  years,  and  then 
was  deservedly  promoted  to  the  most  conspicuous  Episcopal  Church  in 
America.  In  June,  1747,  three  months  after  Mr.  Caner’s  induction  at 
King’s  Chapel,  Governor  Shirley  wrote  to  the  Society  in  England,  “I 
can’t  omit  expressing  my  own  and  the  general  Satisfaction  of  the  congre- 
gation of  the  King’s  Chapel  in  ye  Ministry  of  Mr.  Caner  I promise  my- 
self” that  it  will  “not  only  be  for  the  advantage  and  edification  of  that 
particular  congregation  but  promote  the  general  welfare  of  the  church 
within  this  metropolis  of  New  England.”  Henry  Caner  found  the  little 
wooden  church— built  in  1688 — much  out  of  repair,  indeed  in  a ruinous 
condition,  and  he  almost  immediately  picked  up  the  fund-raising  project 
“laid  aside  for  some  time”  and  set  about  it  with  extraordinary  zeal  and 
energy. 

Of  his  parishioners,  “some  were  of  Opinion  that  rebuilding  was  now 


1949]  Fund  Raising  in  the  1750’s  269 

quite  necessary  as  the  Chapel  was  now  much  more  gone  to  Decay;  that 
it  would  be  Throwing  Money  away  to  attempt  to  repair  it.  Others  objected 
it  would  be  better  to  tarry  till  a Peace,  as  the  War  had  raised  the  Price  of 
Materialls  and  rendered  building  very  expensive.”  But  the  builders  won 
the  day  and  so  “Mr.  Caner,  Mr.  Apthorp  and  Dr.  Gibbins  made  two 
private  lists  of  subscriptions  which  they  supposed  the  People  might  be  able 
and  would  be  willing  to  comply  with.” 

The  project  proceeded  with  energy  and  speed,  for  the  first  meeting  at 
Dr.  Caner’s  house  was  on  30  September  1747.  At  that  meeting  “out  of 
Regard  to  the  Honour  of  God  and  the  more  decent  Provision  for  his  Pub- 
lick  Worship”  seven  men  set  their  names  to  a subscription  paper  in  the 
amount  of  £428  sterling  and  £1400  old  tenor.  A short  five  months  later 
the  subscription  amounted  to  £20,265  old  tenor.  Quite  in  the  fashion  of 
modern  campaigns  for  funds,  all  through  that  period  a meeting  was  held 
every  Thursday  evening  “at  a Publick  House,  in  order  to  concert  measures 
for  advancing  the  Design  and  for  addressing”— “approaching”  would  be 
the  word  today! — “Gentlemen  of  Interest  and  Ability  abroad.  . . At  this 
weekly  meeting  it  was  proposed  that  every  well  wisher  to  the  Affair  should 
be  desired  to  be  present.”  How  much  time  Henry  Caner  habitually  spent  in 
sermon  preparation  I do  not  know,  but  he  must  certainly  have  made  some 
inroads  upon  it  by  the  composition  of  the  long  and  handsomely  elaborate 
letters  sent  abroad  to  well-disposed  persons.  They  combine  pertinent  facts 
and  direct  solicitation  with  elegant  flattery  laid  on  thick.  William  Vassall, 
for  example,  then  living  in  Jamaica,  was  asked  to  use  his  good  offices  to 
awaken  “The  Generosity  of  the  Gentlemen  of  the  West  Indies  Islands” 
— and  Mr.  Caner  added  “It  is  a singular  Pleasure  to  us  that  we  have  the 
Opportunity  of  making  our  present  Application  to  those  Gentlemen  thro’ 
your  hands  whose  influence  and  Interest  we  are  very  sensible  of.”  However 
the  West  Indies  gentlemen  seem  to  have  remained  untouched  and  un- 
touchable. Mr.  Caner  had  no  diffidence  in  approaching  high  places.  To  the 
Lord  Bishop  of  London  he  wrote,  “We  humbly  beg  leave  to  ask  your 
Lordship’s  Opinion  of  the  Propriety  of  an  Application  to  His  Majesty  in 
Favour  of  a Church,  the  first  in  America,  and  who  at  the  Public  Charge 
erected  a very  handsome  Pew  for  his  Majesty’s  Governors  a Church  which 
has  heretofore  tasted  of  the  Royal  Bounty  and  if  we  may  judge  by  the 
Name,  seems  in  some  Measure  encouraged  to  expect  it.  Your  Lordship’s 
Interest  and  Influence  would  be  the  greatest  Security  of  Success.”  How 
grandly  the  words  flowed  from  the  Rector’s  pen ! 

The  Royal  Navy  was  among  the  “prospects”  approached.  In  1747  Sir 
Peter  Warren  in  H.M.S.  Devonshire  was  second  in  command  under  Lord 


270  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

Anderson  of  the  fleet  which  destroyed  a French  squadron  bound,  as  it 
hoped,  to  recapture  Louisburg— and  he  himself  captured  the  French  Ad- 
miral de  la  Jonquiere.  Early  in  1748,  not  unmindful  of  this  exploit,  Mr. 
Caner  wrote  to  Sir  Peter, 

While  the  united  Acclamations  of  British  Subjects  have  agreed  to  celebrate  the 
Success  God  has  given  to  His  Majesty’s  Fleets  under  your  conduct,  permitt  us 
also  at  this  Distance  to  assure  you  that  we  hear  the  News  of  your  Victories  with 
Joy,  and  celebrate  them  with  Gratitude  to  Heaven.  If  the  many  great  Affairs  in 
which  you  are  engaged  give  you  Leisure  to  attend  to  the  Applications  of  a People 
at  this  Distance,  we  humbly  beg  leave  to  lay  before  you  the  ruinous  condition  of 
King’s  Chapel  in  this  town  etc.  We  flattered  ourselves  we  might  take  leave  to 
recommend  a thing  of  this  Nature  to  you  whose  Abilition  enable  you  to  do  that 
which  your  Prudence  and  Generosity  dictate. 

This  skillful  letter  got  £20  sterling  out  of  Sir  Peter. 

Nor  was  the  Army  neglected  by  the  assiduous  fund  raiser.  General 
Paul  Mascarene  was  Lieutenant  Governor  of  Annapolis  Royal  in  Nova 
Scotia,  where  he  had  been  with  troops  for  twenty  years,  a frontier  garri- 
son soldier  but  of  singularly  gentle  disposition.  To  him  Mr.  Caner  wrote, 
“We  have  thought  it  our  Duty  to  acquaint  you  with  the  Proceedings  of 
the  church  . . . and  to  beg  your  Assistance  in  carrying  on  the  good  Work. 
This  indeed  we  promise  our  Selves  from  your  known  Virtue  and  Gen- 
erosity but  shall  entirely  leave  it  with  you  how  far  and  in  what  Manner 
to  recommend  a Thing  of  this  Nature  to  ye  Officers  and  Gentlem11  of  the 
Garrison.”  On  the  final  list  General  Mascarene’s  subscription  appears  as 
“£50  ster ,”  but  nothing  seems  to  have  come  from  the  officers  and  gen- 
tlemen of  the  garrison. 

In  the  spring  of  1748  the  opportunity  came  to  have  a “friend  at  court,” 
a solicitor  on  the  ground  in  England.  For  Sir  Henry  Frankland,  who  was 
setting  out  for  the  old  country,  proffered  his  best  services  upon  his  arrival 
there  “to  collect  the  Donations  of  his  friends  in  favour  of  the  Chapell.” 
Thereupon  Mr.  Caner,  writing  on  behalf  of  the  vestry,  addressed  him  in 
part  as  follows:  “ ’Tis  with  much  pleasure  we  entertain  so  favorable  an 
Opportunity  of  prosecuting  the  Interest  of  our  New  Church  with  our 
friends  at  home.  The  doing  of  it  thro’  your  Hands  . . . we  imagine  will  be 
the  best  Method  to  convince  our  Friends  of  the  Necessity  of  the  thing  and 
of  our  Inability  to  accomplish  it  without  their  kind  Assistance  . . . and  will 
indeed  give  those  Gentlemen  some  distant  Notion  of  what  we  are  doing.” 
Sir  Henry  was  not  an  aggressive  solicitor  and  his  efforts,  if  such  they  may 
be  called,  met  with  no  success.  “At  present,”  he  wrote,  “all  my  Friends 
and  Acquaintances  are  in  the  Country  so  nothing  can  be  done  before  the 


1949]  Fund  Raising  in  the  17 5o  s 271 

Winter.”  But  the  fund-raising  committee,  nothing  daunted,  had  prepared 
a petition  for  presentation  to  no  less  a personage  than  His  Most  Gracious 
Majesty  George  the  Second  “praying  your  Majesty  to  take  the  Premises 
into  your  gracious  Consideration  and  to  favour  them  with  your  Royal 
Bounty.”  By  this  time  there  were  three  personal  representatives  on  the 
spot  in  London,  for  Governor  Shirley  had  gone  thither  on  business  of  state, 
and  Mr.  Barlow  Trecothick,  who  had  been  clerk  of  the  fund  raisers,  had 
departed  to  spend  the  rest  of  his  days  in  London  and  finally  to  become  its 
Lord  Mayor.  To  Mr.  Trecothick’s  activity  and  his  reports  upon  it,  w*e 
owe  one  of  the  most  delightful  incidents  of  this  whole  affair,  which  I shall 
recount  in  conclusion. 

But  first  let  me  just  pause  and  review  the  situation.  Long  before  any- 
thing like  the  necessary  funds  were  in  hand,  the  committee  requested  Peter 
Harrison  of  Newport,  Rhode  Island,  “ a gentleman  of  good  judgment  in 
architecture,”  “to  oblige  them  with  a draught  of  a handsome  church.  We 
do  not  require  any  great  expense  of  ornament  but  chiefly  aim  at  Symmetry 
and  Proportion  which  we  entirely  submit  to  your  judgment.”  So  eager 
were  they  to  get  the  work  begun,  they  had  a trench  opened  for  the  founda- 
tions and  the  cornerstone  laid  before  they  even  received  Peter  Harrison’s 
plan.  This  was  in  their  hands  in  September,  1749,  when  they  wrote  him 
that  they  were  well  pleased  and  that  “when  it  should  be  in  their  power  they 
should  make  a further  acknowledgment  of  his  Favour.”  In  the  event  it 
proved  that  it  was  never  in  their  power  to  do  this,  so  that  Peter  Harrison’s 
beautiful  building  was  literally  a labor  of  love. 

The  fund  raising  went  assiduously  but  not  too  successfully  forward  all 
through  the  five  years  that  elapsed  before  the  Chapel  was  opened  for 
divine  service  in  August,  1754.  The  petition  to  His  Majesty  was  probably 
never  presented.  At  any  rate  no  royal  bounty  was  vouchsafed  to  the  cause. 
As  one  thinks  of  His  Majesty’s  Court  of  the  1 750’s  and  the  government  of 
Sir  Robert  Walpole,  one  is  hardly  surprised  that  there  was  no  enthusiastic 
response  to  an  appeal  for  subscriptions  to  build  a church  on  the  other  side  of 
the  ocean. 

The  account  with  which  I shall  conclude  this  somewhat  meandering 
paper  has  to  do  with  Barlow  Trecothick’s  futile  efforts  to  get  a subscrip- 
tion from  Captain  Thomas  Coram.  Captain  Coram  was  then  a figure  of 
real  importance  in  London.  He  was  the  benevolent  founder  of  the  Found- 
ling’s Hospital,  having  made  a fortune  in  the  American  plantations  and  in 
ventures  at  sea,  but  so  openhanded  was  he  that  when  he  died  in  1751,  it 
was  in  greatly  reduced  circumstances.  However,  there  was  an  early  chap- 
ter of  his  life  which  linked  him  with  King’s  Chapel  and  had  its  serious 


272  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

bearing  on  his  reception  of  the  fund  raiser,  Mr.  Trecothick.  He  had  been 
living  ten  years  in  Taunton,  and  in  1703,  when  he  left,  he  conveyed  his 
farm  lands  there  to  the  “vestrymen  of  the  Church  of  England  in  Boston 
and  their  successors  in  trust  that  if  ever  hereafter  the  inhabitants  of  the 
town  of  Taunton  should  be  more  civilized  than  they  now  are,  and  if  they 
should  incline  to  have  a Church  of  England  among  them  . . . the  vestry  was 
authorized  to  convey  the  whole  or  a part  as  they  should  see  good  for  this 
purpose.”  The  vestry  gave  him  bitter  offense  by  its  conduct,  for  it  disre- 
garded the  trust  and  eventually  sold  the  land,  receiving  for  it  during  this 
very  period  of  fund  raising  a final  payment  of  £100,  which  was  applied  to 
the  new  building. 

In  spite  of  this  forty-year-old  grievance,  the  fund-raising  committee 
dared  to  address  Captain  Coram  in  1748  in  the  following  terms,  “con- 
sidering your  attachment  to  the  Church  of  England  and  upon  how  many 
occasions  you  have  exerted  your  Interest  and  Influence  in  favour  of  the 
infant  churches  in  this  country  we  have  thought  proper,”  etc.,  etc.  “None 
have  shown  a greater  readiness  and  zeal  to  appear  in  behalf  of  the  Church’s 
interest  than  yourself.”  This  was  a strangely  naive  appeal  to  a man  whose 
very  zeal  the  Church  itself  had  offended.  In  spite  of  utter  silence  on  his 
part,  a follow-up  letter  addressed  him  two  years  later  with  questionably 
subtle  flattery,  “knowing  your  constant  application  to  works  of  publick 
charity  we  imagine  you  have  been  too  deeply  engaged  in  something  of  this 
kind  to  give  Attention  to  our  Request  not  doubting  but  at  a convenient 
time  you  will  permit  this  Affair  to  have  place  among  the  many  Interests 
which  fall  under  your  prudent  and  effectual  management.”  The  “con- 
venient time”  never  came,  and  when  Mr.  Trecothick,  the  one  really  active 
“person  to  person”  solicitor  in  this  whole  fund  raising,  waited  upon  him, 
here  is  what  happened,  as  related  in  Mr.  Trecothick’s  letter  to  the  com- 
mittee. 

I had  almost  forgot  to  give  you  an  account  of  my  Embassy  to  Capt.  Coram.  I 
waited  on  him  and  was  very  graciously  received;  but  when  I opened  the  Occasion 
of  my  visit  he  broke  out  into  the  most  passionate  Reproaches  against  the  Vestry 
of  King’s  Chapel  for  slighting  the  present  he  made  them  of  a piece  of  land.  I 
represented  that  his  present  Petitioners  were  to  a Man  another  sett  of  people  and 
not  chargeable  with  the  misconduct  of  their  predecessors  with  whatever  else  I 
could  think  of  to  cool  the  Old  Gentleman,  but  all  in  vain.  After  several  attempts 
to  soothe  him,  he  flatly  told  me  that  he  knew  it  was  in  his  Power  to  serve  the 
Church  very  much , but  that  by  God  if  the  twelve  Apostles  were  to  apply  to  him 
in  behalf  of  it  he  would  -persist  in  refusing  to  do  it. 

“This,”  goes  on  Mr.  Trecothick  in  masterly  understatement,  “I  thot  a 


1949]  Fund  Raising  in  the  1750^  273 

definitive  answer  and  so  took  my  leave.  I have  since  paid  him  another 
visit  [ Mr.  Trecothick  was  nothing  if  not  persistent!  ] and  been  very  cour- 
teously treated  but  on  mentioning  the  church  he  has  directly  relapsed  into 
his  passion,  so  that  you  may  lay  aside  all  hope  from  that  Quarter.” 

Mr.  Caner  was  never  at  a loss  for  the  appropriate  word,  and  his  next 
letter  to  Harlow  Trecothick  contained  this  comment  on  the  profane  old 
gentleman  in  London:  “As  to  Coram,  let  him  go.  He  might  have  served 
us,  but  in  this  Work  ’tis  best  to  he  without  Assistance  from  the  Devil.”  And 
the  work  was  finished  without  any  Satanic  assistance.  The  loving  generosity 
and  public  spirit  of  men  and  women  who  loved  their  church  made  possible 
what  was  in  1752  the  noblest  house  of  worship  on  this  continent,  and  as 
their  monument  the  Chapel  stands  today— a master  work  of  simplicity, 
harmony,  and  beauty. 

One  final  reflection:  on  the  subscription  list  one  finds  very  few  names 
recognizable  as  borne  by  people  in  our  community  today.  As  against  Gard- 
ner, Apthorp,  Inches,  Forbes,  Jackson,  and  Prescott,  e.g.,  there  are  to  be 
found  Shirley,  Lechmere,  Frankland,  Brinley,  Trecothick,  Vassall, 
Royall,  Cradock,  Hutchinson,  Paxton,  Auchmuty,  Johonnot,  Feather- 
stone,  Haliburton,  and  a score  of  others  unfamiliar  today.  The  reason  why 
is  obvious.  The  majority  of  the  subscribers  were  prosperous  stately  people 
who  rolled  into  town  on  Sundays  from  their  sumptuous  countryseats. 
They  were  English  gentry  whose  loyalty  to  God  was  second  only  to  their 
loyalty  to  His  Majesty  the  King.  They  were  not  likely  to  understand  the 
sturdy,  independent  manhood  which  twenty  years  later  was  to  beget  the 
Revolution— itself  in  part  a result  of  this  same  mutual  antipathy  and  mis- 
understanding. So  we  find  in  Dr.  Caner’s  Register  oj  Marriages  under  date 
IO  March  1776  the  following  note. 

An  unnatural  Rebellion  of  the  colonies  against  His  Majesties  Government  obliged 
the  Loyal  Part  of  his  subjects  to  evacuate  their  Dwellings  and  Substance  and  to 
take  refuge  in  Halifax,  London  and  elsewhere;  By  which  means  the  public  wor- 
ship at  King’s  Chapel  became  suspended  and  is  likely  to  remain  so  till  it  shall 
please  God  in  the  Course  of  his  Providence  to  change  the  hearts  of  the  Rebels  or 
give  Success  to  his  Majesties  arms  for  suppressing  the  Rebellion. 

So  they  departed  with  the  King’s  men— these  loyal  subjects  of  his— to  die 
in  exile  and  to  leave  on  these  shores  only  their  remembered  names.  How 
surprised  Dr.  Caner  and  these  subscribers  to  the  new  church  must  be  if 
they  know  that  we  this  afternoon  are  noticing  the  two-hundredth  anni- 
versary of  that  sanctuary  which  their  good  will  and  generous  substance 
raised ! 


274  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 
Mr.  Walter  Muir  Whitehill  read  a paper  entitled: 


The  King’s  Chapel  Library 

WHEN  Richard,  Earl  of  Bellomont,  Captain  General  and  Gov- 
ernor in  Chief  of  His  Majesty’s  Provinces  of  the  Massachusetts 
Bay,  New  York  and  New  Hampshire,  arrived  in  New  York 
in  the  spring  of  1698,  he  brought  with  him  a valuable  collection  of  theo- 
logical books  destined  for  King’s  Chapel,  Boston.  This  Church  of  Eng- 
land parish,  established  in  the  midst  of  Congregationalism  only  a dozen 
years  before,  had  received  royal  donations  in  1696  when  the  Reverend 
Samuel  Myles,  the  second  pastor  of  the  church,  returned  from  a jour-year 
visit  to  England.  “He  arrived  July  4th  and  brought  with  him  part  of  the 
gift  of  Queene  Mary,  performed  by  King  William  after  her  decease,  viz: 
the  church  furniture,  which  were  a cushion  and  cloth  for  the  pulpit,  two 
cushions  for  the  reading  deske,  a carpet  for  the  allter,  all  of  crimson  dam- 
ask with  silke  fringe,  one  large  Bible,  two  large  Common-prayer  Books, 
twelve  lesser  Common-prayer  Bookes,  linen  for  the  allter;  also  two  sur- 
plises,  alter  tabell,  20  yardes  fine  damask.”1  In  the  following  year  a gift 
of  communion  silver  was  received,  and  in  1698  came  the  library,  now  in 
the  possession  of  the  Boston  Athenaeum. 

The  wardens  of  King’s  Chapel,  on  behalf  of  the  congregation,  ac- 
knowledged the  latter  gift,  writing  to  the  Bishop  of  London  on  21  July 
1698,  “We  have  received  another  experience  of  his  Lordship’s  care  and 
kindness  in  sending  us  a Library,  which  we  have  received  in  good  condi- 
tion . . . for  the  present  have  lodged  them  in  Mr.  Myles  his  study,  for  the 
use  of  him,  the  assistant  when  he  comes,  and  his  or  their  successors,  and 
take  care  that  no  abuse  of  imbecilment  be  made  of  them.”2 

The  gift  was  thus  described  by  the  Reverend  Henry  Wilder  Foote  in 
his  Annals  oj  King’s  Chafel : “This  Library,  to  which  reference  is  made  in 
the  letter  to  Bishop  Compton,  25  July  1698,  as  his  gift,  was  really  the 
gift  of  the  King,  and  the  covers  were  so  stamped. 


SVB 

AVSPICII 

WILHELMI 

III 


DE 

BIBLIOTHECA 

DE 

BOSTON 


1 Henry  Wilder  Foote,  Annals  of  King’s  Chafel  (Boston,  1882),  1.  121. 

2 Foote,  Annals , 1.  131. 


1949]  The  King’s  Chapel  Library  275 

A complete  catalogue  of  the  hooks  is  preserved  in  the  book  of  records. 
This  was  the  only  collection  of  books  not  of  private  ownership  in  New 
England  at  the  time,  with  the  single  exception  of  the  library  of  Harvard 
College,  and  was  therefore  valuable  from  the  scarcity  of  books;  but  it 
had  a greater  value  in  itself,  being  an  admirable  collection  of  the  best 
books  for  the  use  of  a scholarly  theologian  of  the  Church  of  England.  It 
contained  ninety-two  folios,  eighteen  quartos,  and  ninety  smaller  works, 
including  Walton’s  great  Biblia  Polyglotta,  lexicons,  and  commentaries, 
fine  editions  of  the  Church  Fathers,  Bodies  of  Divinity,  works  on  Doc- 
trine and  Duty,  the  sermons  of  the  great  preachers  of  the  English  Church, 
historical  works  (among  them  such  sound  histories  as  Sir  William  Dugdal’s 
View  oj  the  Late  Troubles ),  Controversial  and  Philological  Treatises.”3 

Although  the  Bishop  of  London  and  King  William  III  have  been  giv- 
en credit  for  this  gift,  the  real  instigator  was  the  Reverend  Thomas  Bray, 
D.D.  (1658—1730),  who,  soon  after  his  appointment  by  the  Bishop  of 
London  in  1695  as  Commissary  for  Maryland,  saw  that  the  future  of  the 
Anglican  church  in  the  colonies  depended  upon  an  adequate  supply  of 
books  for  the  clergy.  Bray’s  first  task  was  to  recruit  clergy  for  vacant 
parishes  in  Maryland.  As  his  earliest  biographer  well  put  it:  “With  this 
view  he  laid  before  the  Bishops  the  following  consideration:  that  none  but 
the  poorer  sort  of  clergy  could  be  persuaded  to  leave  their  friends  and 
change  their  native  country  for  one  so  remote;  that  such  persons  could 
not  be  able  sufficiently  to  supply  themselves  with  books;  that  without  such 
a competent  provision  of  books,  they  could  not  answer  the  design  of  their 
mission ; that  a library  would  be  the  best  encouragement  to  studious  and 
sober  men  to  undertake  the  service:  and  that  as  the  great  inducement  to 
himself  to  go,  would  be  to  do  the  most  good  he  could  be  capable  of  doing, 
he  therefore  proposed  to  their  Lordships,  that  if  they  thought  fit  to  en- 
courage and  assist  him  in  providing  parochial  libraries  for  the  Ministers 
that  should  be  sent,  he  would  then  be  content  to  accept  of  the  Commis- 
sary’s office  in  Maryland.”4 5 

From  this  realization  developed  his  Proposals  for  encouraging  Learning 
and  Religion  in  the  Foreign  Plantations  f and,  in  1679,  his  Bibliotheca  Paro- 

3 Foote,  Annals , 1.  124.— 125. 

4 Publick  Sfirity  Illustrated  in  the  Life  and  Designs  of  the  Reverend  Thomas  Brayy 
D.D.  Late  Minister  of  St.  Botolfh  without  Aldgate  (London,  1746),  10-11.  See 
also  Samuel  Clyde  McCulloch,  “Dr.  Bray’s  Commissary  Work  in  London,”  Wil- 
liam and  Mary  Quarterly , 3rd  ser.,  11  (1945),  333—348,  and  the  readable  recent 
biography  by  H.  P.  Thompson,  Thomas  Bray  (London:  S.P.C.K.,  1954). 

5 Lawrence  C.  Wroth,  “Dr.  Bray’s  ‘Proposals  for  the  Incouragement  of  Religion 


2j6  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

chialhy  which  set  forth  in  detail  his  ideal  of  a clerical  library.  By  April, 
1696,  thanks  to  a donation  from  Princess  Anne,  Dr.  Bray  was  in  a posi- 
tion to  send  to  Annapolis,  Maryland,  a library  that  consisted  eventually 
of  1,095  books,  costing  £350.®  Dr.  Bray’s  account  books  preserve  full  de- 
tails of  the  libraries  sent  to  various  colonies,  which  cost  a total  of  £1,772. 
The  College  of  William  and  Mary  received  books  to  the  value  of  £50.; 
New  York  £62.175.,  and  Boston  £99.ios.7 

The  books  coming  to  Boston  were  decorously  and  uniformly  bound, 
with  the  stamping  described  above  by  Dr.  Foote.8  Dr.  Bray’s  punctilious 
care  for  all  details  of  the  shipment  is  well  shown  by  the  entries  for  19 
August  1697  in  his  account  books  quoted  by  H.  P.  Thompson.9 


19  Augt.  1697  £ s d 

6  Book  presses  with  Locks  Bolts  and  Handles  for  the  Library  sent 
wth.  his  Excellency  the  Earle  of  Bellamont  at  Boston  in  New  Eng- 
land 1 os.  per  press  3 0 0 

4 Book  presses  for  the  Library  sent  to  New  York  at  10s.  per  press  200 

For  a box  for  some  of  the  Boston  Books  wch.  the  presses  wd.  not  hold  3 o 
For  Paper  to  lay  Between  the  Books  to  keep  the  Covers  from  being 

Raed  3 o 

For  Mail  Cord  to  Cord  them  up  10  O 


Paid  the  Porters  for  Cording  and  Carrying  them  down  3 paire  of  nar- 


row winding  stairs  and  afterwards  up  again  to  the  Lodgings  (my 
Lord  Bellamont’s  servt.  not  calling  for  them  (according  to  Appoint- 
ment) to  take  ym.  on  Ship  Board  along  with  his  Ldp’s  Things  pand 
within  4 daies  after  downstairs  again  to  the  waterside  13  O 

For  a Large  Boat  to  Carry  them  through  the  Bridge  to  the  Ship  5 O 

Gave  my  Ld.  Bellamonts  servt.  to  take  care  of  ym.  2 6 

Gave  them  a Botle  of  wine  to  drink  my  Ld.’s  good  health  2 o 

For  Ale  to  make  the  Porters  drink  1 O 

For  Corbets  and  Fees  at  the  Custom  House  120 

For  2 fol°.  Paper  Books  bound  in  Vellum  to  Register  the  aforesd.  Li- 
braries and  sent  wth.  the  Libraries  5 O 

For  1 paper  Book  fol°.  bound  in  Vellum  to  Register  the  aforesd.  Li- 
braries and  Delivered  to  the  Earle  of  Bellamont  3 O 


and  Learning  in  the  Foreign  Plantations’ — A Bibliographical  Note,”  Proceedings 
of  the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society , lxv  (1932-1936),  518—534. 

6 Thompson,  Thomas  Bray , 17. 

7 Thompson,  Thomas  Bray , 29. 

8 A typical  binding  is  reproduced  in  Walter  Muir  Whitehill,  A Boston  Athenceum 
Miscellany  (Boston:  Boston  Athenaeum,  1950),  plate  I. 

9 Thomas  Bray , 31—32. 


1949]  The  King’s  Chapel  Library  277 

The  “register  of  hooks”  received  in  Boston  was  published  by  Dr.  Foote 
from  the  records  of  King’s  Chapel  in  the  Proceedings  oj  the  Massachusetts 
Historical  Society , xvm  (1880—  1 8 8 1 ) , 423—430.  A copy,  now  owned  by 
the  Boston  Athenaeum,  made  in  1714  from  the  list  in  the  “church  book,” 
is  reproduced  herewith  in  collotype. 

In  1807  the  King’s  Chapel  Library  was  deposited  with  the  Theological 
Library,  then  housed  in  the  Vestry  Room  of  the  First  Church  in  Chauncy 
Place,  but  in  1823  the  Proprietors  of  the  Theological  Library  voted  that 
their  property  should  be  transferred  from  the  First  Church  vestry  to  the 
Boston  Athenaeum.  Consequently  an  agreement  was  signed  on  31  July 
1823  between  Ebenezer  Oliver  and  Joseph  May,  wardens,  on  behalf  of 
the  Proprietors  of  King’s  Chapel,  and  Theodore  Lyman,  Jr.,  on  behalf 
of  the  Trustees  of  the  Boston  Athenaeum,  by  which  the  King’s  Chapel 
Library  was  to  be  deposited  in  the  Athenaeum.  This  provided  that  the 
ministers  of  the  Chapel  should  be  admitted  freely  as  life  subscribers  and 
that  the  books  should  be  properly  arranged  in  the  Athenaeum  in  the  room 
appropriated  to  theology.  These  agreements  were  published  by  the  Rev- 
erend F.  W.  P.  Greenwood,  A History  oj  KingJs  Chafel  in  Boston  (Boston, 
1833),  161—164.  For  more  than  half  a century,  the  King’s  Chapel  books 
were  shelved  as  part  of  the  Athenaeum’s  theological  library,  but  in  1881 
their  value  as  a collection  was  emphasized  by  bringing  them  together  in  a 
special  case,  which  now  stands  in  the  center  of  the  biography  room  on  the 
third  floor  of  the  Athenaeum.  This  handsome  case — a kind  of  “ark  of  the 
covenant”  of  vague  seventeenth-century  inspiration — is  decorated  with 
engraved  portraits  of  King  William  III  and  his  wife,  Queen  Mary,  who 
had  died  before  the  library  was  sent  to  Boston.  In  1911  the  Proprietors 
of  King’s  Chapel  made  a formal  conveyance  of  the  library  to  the  Propri- 
etors of  the  Boston  Athenaeum  in  exchange  for  a share  of  the  Boston 
Athenaeum  for  the  use  of  the  ministers  of  the  church. 

In  spite  of  the  precautions  taken  against  “abuse  and  imbecilement,” 
some  volumes  of  the  King’s  Chapel  Library  disappeared  before  the  books 
were  deposited  in  the  Athenaeum  in  1823.  The  wear  and  tear  of  two  cen- 
turies and  a half  have  caused  others  to  be  rebound.  The  King’s  Chapel 
copy  of  Johannes  Cassianus,  De  institutis  coenihiorum  (Basel,  1485)  is  now 
in  an  elaborately  tooled  nineteenth-century  binding,  which  carries  on  the 
spine  the  ingenuous  stamping:  “printed  1485  rebound  1826,”  but 
many  of  the  volumes  still  retain  the  royal  stamp  on  the  binding. 

The  following  short  title  catalogue,  prepared  by  Miss  Marjorie  Lyle 
Crandall,  lists  the  volumes  from  the  King’s  Chapel  Library  that  are  to- 
day in  the  possession  of  the  Boston  Athenaeum. 


278  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

SHORT  TITLE  CATALOGUE  OF 
KING’S  CHAPEL  LIBRARY 

Books  in  the  original  collection  of  i6q8 

[Allen,  William.] 

Animadversions  on  that  part  of  Mr.  Robert  Ferguson’s  book.  London,  1676. 


[Allen,  William.] 

(Wing  A1054) 

Catholicism:  or,  Several  enquiries.  London,  1683. 

(Wing  A1055) 

[Allen,  William.] 

The  Christians  justification  stated.  London,  1678. 
[Allen,  William.] 

(Wing  A1057) 

A discourse  of  the  nature,  series,  and  order  of  occurrences.  London,  1689. 


[Allen,  William.] 

(Wing  A1062) 

The  mystery  of  iniquity  unfolded.  London,  1675. 

(Wing  A1066) 

[Allen,  William.] 

Of  the  state  of  the  church  in  future  ages.  London,  1684. 

(Wing  A1067) 

[Allen,  William.] 

A practical  discourse  of  humility.  London,  1681. 
Ambrosius,  St. 

Opera.  Lutetian  Parisiorum,  1661.  5 v.  in  2. 
Athanasius,  St. 

Opera  quse  reperiuntur  omnia.  Parisiis,  1627.  2 v. 

Augustinus  Aurelius,  St. 

Opera.  Parisiis,  1637.  1 1 v.  in  7. 

(Wing  A1070) 

Baker,  Sir  Richard. 

A chronicle  of  the  kings  of  England.  9th  imp.  London,  1696.  (Wing  B510) 
Barlow,  Thomas. 

Several  miscellaneous  and  weighty  cases  of  conscience.  London,  1692. 


Barrow,  Isaac. 

(Wing  B843) 

The  works  of,  v.  4.  Londini,  1687. 

(Wing  B925) 

Barrow,  Isaac. 

A brief  exposition  on  the  creed.  London,  1697. 

(Wing  B929) 

Barrow,  Isaac. 

A defence  of  the  B.  Trinity.  London,  1697. 

(Wing  B931) 

1 949  ] 


The  King’s  Chapel  Library 


279 


Bates,  William. 

Considerations  of  the  existence  of  God.  2d  ed.  London,  1677. 


Baxter,  Richard. 

Gildas  Salvianus.  2d  ed.  London,  1657. 

Baxter,  Richard. 

A paraphrase  on  the  New  Testament.  London,  1685. 


(Wing  Bi  102) 
(Wing  B 1 276) 

(Wing  B 1 3 3 8) 


Bernardus  Clarcevallensis , St. 

Opera  omnia.  Parisiis,  1621. 

Bible,  Whole.  Polyglot. 

Biblia  sacra  polyglotta  . . . Bryan  Walton.  Londini,  1657.  6 v. 


Bible,  O.T.  Psalms.  Hebrew. 

Sepher  Tehillim.  Cantabrigian,  1685. 

Blount,  Sir  Thomas  Pope. 

Censura  celebriorum  authorum.  Londini,  1690. 

Bray,  Thomas. 

Bibliotheca  parochialis.  Part  I.  London,  1697. 


(Wing  B2797) 
(Wing  B2743) 

(Wing  B3346) 

(Wing  B4290) 


Bray,  Thomas. 

A course  of  lectures,  v.  1.  2d  ed.  Oxford,  1697.  2 copes.  (Wing  B4292A) 


Bright,  George. 

A treatise  of  prayer.  London,  1678. 

Bull,  George. 

Examen  censurae.  Londini,  1676. 

Bull,  George. 

Judicium  ecclesiae  catholicae.  Oxonii,  1694. 

Burnet,  Gilbert. 

The  history  of  the  Reformation.  2d  ed.  London,  1681. 


(Wing  B4677) 
(Wing  B5416) 
(Wing  B541  8) 
(Wing  B5798) 


Burnet,  Gilbert. 

The  history  of  the  Reformation.  2d  ed.  Part  two.  London,  1683. 

Buxtorfius,  Johannes.  (Wi„gB5799) 

Lexicon  hebraicum  et  chaldaicum.  Ed.  5a.  Basileae,  1645. 

Buxtorfius,  Johannes. 

Thesaurus  grammaticus  linguae  sanctae  hebraeae.  Ed.  3a.  Basilea,  1620. 

Bythner,  Victorinus. 

Lyra  prophetica.  Londini,  1679. 


(Wing  B6423) 


2 80  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

Calvin,  Jean. 

Opera  omnia  theologica.  Genevse,  1617.  7 v. 


Castell,  Edmund. 

Lexicon  heplaglotton.  Londini,  1669. 

(Wing  Ci  224) 

Cave,  William. 

Apostolici:  or,  the  history.  3d  ed.  London,  1687. 

(Wing  Ci  592) 

Cave,  William. 

Ecclesiastici.  London,  1683. 

(Wing  Ci  596) 

Cave,  William. 

Primitive  Christianity.  4th  ed.  London,  1682. 
Chamier,  Daniel. 

Panstratise  catholicse.  Genevse,  1626.  4 v. 
Chemnitz,  Martin. 

Examinis  Concilii  Tridentini.  Francofurti,  1574. 
Chemnitz,  Martin. 

Harmonise  Evangelicse.  Genevse,  1628. 

Chemnitz,  Martin. 

Loci  theologici.  Ed.  nova.  Witebergse,  1610. 

(Wing  C1601) 

Comber,  Thomas. 

The  church  history  clear’d.  London,  1695. 

(Wing  C5447) 

Conant,  John. 

Sermons  preach’d  on  several  occasions.  London,  1693. 

(Wing  C5684) 

Conant,  John. 

Sermons  preach’d  on  several  occasions.  Second  volume.  London,  1697. 


Cradock,  Samuel. 

(Wing  C5686) 

The  apostolical  history.  London,  1672. 

(Wing  C6744) 

Cradock,  Samuel. 

The  history  of  the  Old  Testament.  London,  1683. 

Cyprianus,  St. 

Opera.  Parisiis,  1666. 

Daille,  Jean. 

De  usu  patrum.  Genevse,  1656. 

(Wing  C6750) 

[Dodwell,  Henry.] 

Two  letters  of  advice.  2d  ed.  London,  [1680?  ]. 

(Wing  Dl  823 ? ) 

r 


j 


i 

M 


7/k  7-x-  f. 


r/’  /i.* 


/Zts  — -''-  ■ ' ■ /• 

*/f&7£>zy  J7r~  /XZ  /Z&*  r/j/ttc 

\>  p\  ^ p&kfdSrrz-  - 


-sk— 


Uc- 


Z <^y  n 

7j/tf/et-fZ0  |_ 

' / ^ -/JUs /cr~y>™ 

Q/Zfk  • ZZZcr^  - ~ <*  ':  ^/‘ 

fat-fcZ 

^ Zsa/fae~r‘tfrl'  //*X  z"2- 

/ska-/fc/x~- 

__  . - 


ZjCiZ  Mei*sS  &"** *&**&*  o <ls*?r&&  • 

far- A»Ls,}  ^ • 


<2- 


'lAr/’  ZW/Z 


Zr  ZyZyk~kf  ^svt/s  - - 7"/;^ 

6faer*t-  7>k^  yk&Xr/ 


fZ^r/fcr  ? 


xVS-fzs^  . t ^ 

/^  /k^C-y  SAP  ftr  /^£<*~S7lJk/y Z -,  • 

f^frrn  **■  y'y  ‘ / fz^ZAu)/  z/rtsl Sr2yrzrz/aC>  ^unr/A^^/Zccty 

itf  sr*  ^y^/Zzr/^/  - ~ ^ ^ 

^^rS<yj/.  /Zfo-*c)/  /Z<S7Z^  - - / 

**■  Z-  ?'/kkuky  <kbcfr~ 

//  ‘kTy/Z/k  rv 

Z &*>*** k?7  tS/rokrA# — .'•  ’ Z/k"J's'/ y — <f'-‘!’ 

y>Z'!a/7  fJe/U*  s VZ+r?  ?-- 


y-ka 


'r 

fTK. 


^T.lX.k;  jb^Qr^^^Szf  - f 

irdkiknk  k/jfr-A ' z^yr^Try  $*i-SS,3  #-? -*'-$-/?-.<? 


rs 


V-yurfL 


'-/?&  ^ 


a 


. - y '*>'  ,. 

Jtt  fortWU  7ykin~yt-  /r#~C-  /ttrsi 

flf  /UCCsU  /*  tf'S 

, ZftfZ? 


Ar~ 


Af 


,-xA't 


C: 


/*  >0  * * __ 

£, rrryro'/ rests  <?yt97sc  f. 

*2.  jfl)/Z4'  — /o2T/ 

£j}fl/k»lr  ' JZ/7~<Z  Qr S’ 

~ <a. 


/ 

52/*  J)  tei/S&fy®. 


y/r<?ttr/-ury7ip  0/>iT*-£*~  j <Utrf  • ,7~Sr*>  Sjfa./ 

t^/s  Staff  yPe  r-a^FT  Vtrztt-'nfi^"/  fy  3 t«r/ J/cy/rt 

, PPtf  'Pa/Z-jy  Psri/fm  //~y  y 

dkjucc-  '%?*  <yZ//r  n.  <lrzS  /So./ 
2fwyu/f'A 2/’  //Oh.*  ■■  y <L>-oS!  52a  /fty  yS’tt 
yp/lys  ytdy  //yfr^.'  f°  ' 

■^r&arry  /rfetFi.-  - - .44?  /PS/ 

jZ&ft-ai/i  S/’b'  ■**»■  _ -S^*-'1  /So-/ 

yp'Pj  Off-  SitSmr*-': 

Jc>-/Lrff-stfiXS<  /^JtriSffi/ci' • /ff/P.  <&eJ&J'CL'  yL/rrPi/  ■/  - 

"">■/  7 . ' yff/f  ,/  ,A,  K pl/PiTT^A 

J?Y 'rr-rP?.W  e &yrtr/arpj-/Tp & ci ,:•  ^ 

y//./e,  /cy-rfHp^hL  a-nS* 


ry  - / • y* — • 'z  /sTfa^ 


c p/Ltrssi y {T/>thr-fi  <3  fl/crT7' 


f * f / / 

{f  #//  % ^yp"7*'  f^'- 

A.  — 7?,-;  /Cf/’  Jr/Z^  -'  -4^ 


j/7/£f?t//-/&<FFrr 7?}i/ff-s£ff/  Jjkc/&--  •'  f4’ 

£)>v/s2t-  ffT/c  //&  ySra/Pr>'/^-  /Sni,  ^?D yffffz/Scf^/^-  sjp 

OJ/fe,  //<rAs  /cn/zPy  sps.  v.  __  — - — 3 "2-^  / 

////  fo^u'f  o¥/is-r?z/  syr 

//-t  J^y^pr^z/rX/  ^ 

■w  x 7 // .//  z / r'  S'  / (7 


Pcs'  /Or7rz*.s<-fi/  / 


<3 


O^r/Z' ASr/tcStS/W  S,  Az. 


V 


J 


fJ-Sty.-t  .ff/S/f"^  ■■/-■''/ 
C7tf’i.'>S'/z-/  Ptrtrt *t 'rt—  S'  ' 


'■^P-f/Ai  *t-  ^r//t  drTT/C  &&tr/?//osr  -sr/t* 

/?  / s?.  S'  ,'.  + ' ‘ 

® ssPL/iC'p'  €phr/s/  Cs&s/sf/c  s-  -rrPc  T 

" 7,  _S  S p ) 

Vy  "Jsy/b-  f y J/t &j  ;<?  $ ’ c - ' 


±s 

I 

,/  . 


2^^  ^/sz/fj’/p//^ 


C/ 


y?}  y<-> 


dr* 


~/s//s/Z. 


2f- 

■s'  rvx  y s?  y?c.  o 

-etc  yY-  /cs  ^ypi>/  yets# 

p /r/zc  JP/y2fW./&/  V <:hr-f^  S' 


x 7 77?  / 

, /?  />i£>  a'  ^ a " 


r //"^f  - 


‘ / P / 

/;«t^  ' rcr\?&  fl-gf  /l.  <--■  rjr-  L// 

i ^ ' Qsff?  ''Lr/ i Z-frCdt-  f ^ sf  j'crL  ^ ^ 

5^/  VZZcU^  rsn  fac/r/^yfa.u,  fapbr.  ■ ^*| 
Q:  #/i  -fZc>  (*&#-)'  »*  fe-  '* 


77 


/■xZ/yTZf  /inrrZ  3 /f  V*. 

')  / -y  r4r  ' . / 


7/2  7Zz-£C7  ^ r 
)o  X- 

7^/  /r 


~ « a~  , ; ■ " / « <^v  r^-fy  rfZ<h~  /lXrr>&  I 

7//&%/^  s*  ***- * " * ’ 

'r  /fey/thy r 6ZZpU,/'u  ( /W^^'''*- 

-V  ^ ✓ C-,  r\  p /J 


r / J?  O /V-  ' 

« y/sr  (_'  rrtny 

J ?A  yZes  '&*>*  s 


/ 


j///  /*  a 


7r&*  a Z , 

'/ ' ^y7'  A-rA-~  'A-'-'  •?-  ■ 

M‘y,p  yt  » 

AaA/to-d  fyu Aiwr  ^ / 


7?  7/  27-^.  a yrne- 

1 r£luZi  J/Q,c<*rrL,  fcx-4/;*,  fa£r7c 

^ />  «.  > < '\  / I 


tfS 

^ • v , _ 

■ CsfLy*  7&~ 


-fafez 

p-pt/  p-U'7  «-  7 


/7  <C  / » y . /'“'I  . ^7/  y 

y&S/tf  (Zpr/j/r-  ///  Zyf'rt/ 

Y?  $^*i_£r?a-~  (f/t-  Z^C'  ' r/'7U"/f/ 

/f/Jfc/r/  j/<ec6<r#.f  A / yyZyyc  A f.  ‘ • 

ZZ  //-/Zy^fr-  'ZyA  pyt  j/<e 


/> 


- ' 7 

>771/  0 


/?  <cs  TP  J / / 71  i 
/ 


r- 


^ ^ ' w'  / (J 

* ^ z / / /^  Z ? /*-//-'  /•-Z0 /’j/f'.zz  £ 

¥ fa  ^ ^ c- ' ■ ^ — ■ vr  ( ; /l1^’  J 

^ f/  (f/?73-i  y$-M/  ///  a,  fa<P'?Zr  j\ 

yr*~  / y / 


r~j)yT7lfM  /7<£//7  p/?  jCj£ '/ 1 CTX^l  7 


QviccJ  /r 

$/wn/~  A^c  ' ^ u-  fi^r^//'r- — • 

ffirtr*uc/?J  rf* /£ 

'Iftrrt  $wJjU//  (b*i*s  Sjfd* 

ZL'  ’ &'/:/  IT  ^ /*  • z_-.  / 

\}eUijSc/^  yr*/^/  /l'l^\ 

X II  £0i  rrr&e‘riJ i #Oj 


Sf  /fie-  (j/i.u/t-(n~  ■ — ■■  dr/tt 

' Yr  //a/rt/'trsd  Pr/e/xuA  rXy?<r*?sw 


*t£u/i0tsi. 


r 


<7&/ 


-4?/  V^c  cAsra-;’ 


^ 7tLY?  f Y 7Y  / YZ 

<Z  ts 


'Ar/to 


K 


t-  ywi&'jjf  f 


y 

is  z. 


tfr  /A.wS/  y 

( ]ym)  I C'YZ&(TS?L-J4(' ArZ  Jj/A 


O y^cc^rwl  y 

' r L * 


yf  A/-  'Inr  A7  f 


'y-  ^fe/Zf  /trzrrtf  //- 
J?  / * S Y?  / 

J/r&£  /&*-*  yrsyv 


a 


X III ■ WAzuA/7 ^f£j£s 

/ yr  _/  / 

/\  AUAyt/^u'  (TfoJ-z-Y*-  <^ryr/  J &~-sz — * <2-  Qj-zr-A  ^AerA*/ 


O-  ? xt/ 


9 uYA  '- 


//-f-j 2-  e/Zj/r  'c^w1  ( TaY-uYo 


Ar&jz-  yAi 

/ C— v^-  > 


VJ 


^ff^fzryz/  y/cjufr  znvstSLy*  y * 

/?  y * ^ /7- 

J(fc-/4tS/vJ  Mzf  / Cyt-/?—  AM* 

/ / A 

csA.  9-r  Yfsz  Cr7~  'PCYtSl/  / ^ j Yt  j / ///tf  yy  /?7  ^ S f . /7  f jTTYsA 


4/t  CCC&0  *J  (^Yr/^Y^yys  tY/??—,  p* 

% 


ysrzYZCjx;  ///<rrs  /:'7y<--a.  A »<^ ' Ay' 


/ 


C 


7/  uy<L'//s~-sz-,f 


Ay.’  At-  -rAA)  y 

sqtT  As  ' Js  ' 7 


My  I 

^ i 


od& 


C/Y-. 


/ i~ 


4,4/>  A/ 


'fynlrM-  jfftt %aSt/l  -••  / 
^2/  (Amsi&Y/  ,/za'. 


WL.  L 


S4/1& 


0 YjiYAfA^cei  Ta’ 


p* 


/,  YS, 


J 


The  King’s  Chapel  Library 


1949] 

Downame,  George. 


A treatise  of  justification.  London,  1639. 


(STC7123) 


Downame,  John. 

The  Christian  warfare.  4th  ed.  London,  1634. 


(STC7137) 


Drelincourt,  Charles. 

The  Christian’s  defence.  3d  ed.  London,  1692. 


(Not  in  Wing) 


[Dugdale,  Sir  William.] 

A short  view  of  the  late  troubles  in  England.  Oxford,  1681.  (Wing  D2492) 


Dupin,  Louis  Ellies. 

A new  history.  2d  ed.  London,  1693-95.  7 v.  in  3.  (Wing  D2644) 


Edwards,  John. 

A discourse  concerning  the  authority,  v.  2—3.  London,  1694—95. 


A discourse  concerning  the  authority.  2d  ed.  London,  1696.  (Wing  E203) 


Ellis,  John. 

Articulorum  XXXIX  ecclesias  anglicans  defensio.  Amstelodami,  1696. 
Epiphanius,  St. 

Opera  omnia.  Ed.  nova.  Colonial,  1682.  2 v. 

Estius,  Gulielmus. 

In  omnes  Beati  Pauli  et  aliorum  apostolorum  epistolas  commentaria.  Parisiis, 
1623. 

Estius,  Gulielmus. 

In  quatuor  libros  sententiarum  commentaria.  Parisiis,  1638. 

Eusebius  Caesariensis. 

Ecclesiastics  historic.  Moguntis,  1672. 

Falkner,  William. 

Two  treatises.  London,  1684.  (WingF335) 

Field,  Richard. 


Of  the  church.  2d  ed.  Oxford,  1628. 


(STC  10858) 


Fowler,  Edward. 

The  design  of  Christianity.  2d  ed.  London,  1676. 


(Wing  F1699) 


Fowler,  Edward. 

Libertas  evangelica.  London,  1680. 


(Wing  F1709) 


Fulgentius,  St. 

Opera  quae  extant,  omnia.  Basiles,  [1587?  ]. 


282  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

Goodman,  John. 


The  penitent  pardon’d.  4th  ed.  London,  1694. 

Gregorius  Nazianzenus , St. 

Opera,  v.  2.  Parisiis,  1630. 

(Wing  Gi  1 18) 

Grotius,  Hugo. 

De  veritate  religionis  Christianas.  Oxonias,  1675. 

(Wing  G2104) 

Hammond,  Henry. 

The  works  of.  Fourth  volume.  London  and  Oxford,  1684. 

(Wing  H507) 

Hammond,  Henry. 

The  works  of,  v.  1—2.  2d  ed.  London,  1684. 

(Wing  H508) 

Hammond,  Henry. 

A paraphrase,  and  annotations  upon  all  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  3d 
ed.  London,  1671.  (Wing  H574) 


Heylyn,  Peter. 

Theologia  veterum,  or  the  summe.  London,  1654. 
Hieronymus,  St. 

Opera  omnia.  Parisiis,  1609.  4 v.  in  3. 

(Wing  H1738) 

Hooker,  Richard. 

The  works  of.  London,  1676. 

(Wing  H263 2) 

Hopkins,  Ezekiel. 

An  exposition  on  the  Lord’s  Prayer.  London,  1692. 

(Wing  H2730) 

Hopkins,  Ezekiel. 

An  exposition  on  the  ten  commandments.  London,  1692. 

(Wing  H2732) 

Horneck,  Anthony. 

The  happy  ascetick.  London,  1681. 

(Wing  H2839) 

Jackson,  Thomas. 

The  works  of.  London,  1673.  3 v. 

Justinus  Martyr , St. 

Opera.  Colonias,  1686. 

Kettlewell,  John. 

(Wing  J90) 

The  measures  of  Christian  obedience.  3d  ed.  London,  1696.  (Wing  K375) 
[Lamb,  Thomas.] 


A fresh  suit  against  independency.  London,  1677. 
[Lamb,  Thomas.] 

A stop  to  the  course.  2d  ed.  London,  1693. 

(Wing  L210) 
(Wing  L21 2) 

(Wing  L2 1 2) 


283 


*949] 


The  King’s  Chapel  Library 


LeBlanc  de  Reaulieu,  Ludovicus. 

Theses  theologicx.  3d  ed.  Londini,  1683. 


(Wing  L803) 


Leighton,  Robert. 

A practical  commentary  upon  the  first  two  chapters  ...  of  St.  Peter.  York, 
1693.  (WingLi028) 


Leighton,  Robert. 

A practical  commentary,  . . . vol.  II.  London,  1694. 
Leighton,  Robert. 

Prndectiones  theologicx.  Londini,  1693. 


(Wing  L1029) 
(Wing  L1030) 


Leybourn,  William. 

Cursus  mathematicus.  Mathematical  sciences.  London,  1690.  (WingLigii) 


Lightfoot,  John. 

The  works  of.  London,  1684.  2 v. 

Limborch,  Philippus  van. 

Theologia  Christiana.  Ed.  altera.  Amstelredami,  1695. 


(Wing  L205  1) 


[Long,  Thomas.] 

A continuation  and  vindication  of  the  defence.  London,  1682. 

(Wing  L2964) 


Mede,  Joseph. 

The  works  of.  4th  ed.  London,  1677. 
More,  Henry. 

Opera  omnia.  Londini,  1679. 

More,  Henry. 

Opera  theologica.  Londini,  1675. 


(Wing  Mi 589) 
(Wing  M2633) 
(Wing  M2636) 


More,  Henry. 

Scriptorum  philosophicorum  tomus  alter.  Londini,  1679.  (WingM2676) 

Newman,  Samuel. 

A large  and  compleat  concordance  to  the  Bible.  3d  ed.  London,  1658. 

PeUing,  Edward.  ^Wmg  N<?3  ^ 

A discourse  concerning  the  existence  of  God.  London,  1696.  (Wing  Pi 078) 

Penton,  Stephen. 

Apparatus  ad  theologiam.  Londini,  1688.  (WingPi437) 

Peraldus,  Gulielmus. 

Summae  virtutum  ac  vitiorum.  Antverpiae,  1571.  2 v.  in  1. 

Perkins,  William. 

Works,  v.  1.  Cambridge,  1608.  (STC  19649) 


2 84  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

Perkins,  William. 


Works,  v.  3.  London  and  Cambridge,  1613. 

(STC  19650) 

Perkins,  William. 

Works,  v.  2.  London,  1631. 

Plutarch. 

Quas  exstant  omnia.  Francofurti,  1599.  2 v. 
Polanus,  Amandus. 

(STC  19653) 

Syntagma  theologize  Christianas.  Francofurti  et  Hanovias,  1655. 
Polycarp,  St. 


Polycarpi  et  Ignatii  epistolae.  Oxonias,  1644. 

(Wing  P2789) 

Quick,  John. 

Synodicon  in  Gallia  reformata.  London,  1692.  2 v.  in  1. 

(Wing  Q209) 

[Rawlet,  John.] 

The  Christian  monitor.  20th  ed.  London,  1696. 

(Wing  R350) 

Reynolds,  Edward. 

The  works  of.  London,  1679. 

(Wing  R1235) 

Sanderson,  Robert. 

Casus  conscientias.  Cantabrigias,  1688. 

(Wing  S 5 8 1 ) 

Sanderson,  Robert. 

De  juramenti.  Londini,  1696. 

(Wing  S588) 

Sanderson,  Robert. 

De  obligatione.  Londini,  1696. 

(Wing  S596) 

Sanderson,  Robert. 

XXXV  sermons.  7th  ed.  London,  1681. 

Scapula,  Joannes. 

Lexicon  grascolatinum  novum.  Ed.  ultima.  Genevas,  1628. 

(Wing  S637) 

Scott,  John. 

The  Christian  life.  Part  I.  6th  ed.  London,  1694. 

(Not  in  Wing) 

Scott,  John. 

The  Christian  life.  Part  II,  vol.  I,  4th  ed.  London,  1695. 

(Wing  S2052) 

Scott,  John. 

The  Christian  life.  Part  II,  vol.  II.  4th  ed.  London,  1697. 

(Wing  S2055) 

Scott,  John. 

The  Christian  life.  Part  III,  vol.  IV.  London,  1696. 

(Wing  S2056) 

285 


1 949] 


The  King’s  Chapel  Library 


Scrivener,  Matthew. 

Apologia  pro  s.  ecclesix  patribus.  Londini,  1672. 
Sharrock,  Robert. 

De  officiis  secundum  naturae  jus.  Oxoniae,  1660. 


(Wing  S21 16) 
(Wing  S3014) 

[Sherlock,  William.] 

A defence  and  continuation  of  the  discourse  concerning  the  knowledge  of 
Jesus  Christ.  London,  1675.  (WingS328i) 


[Sherlock,  William.] 

A discourse  about  church-unity.  London,  1681. 


(Wing  S3284) 


Sherlock,  William. 

A discourse  concerning  the  divine  providence.  2d  ed.  London,  1694. 

Sherlock,  William.  (WingS3287) 

A discourse  concerning  the  knowledge  of  Jesus  Christ.  3d  ed.  London,  1678. 

Sherlock,  William.  ^Wmg  S3 29°) 

A practical  discourse  concerning  a future  judgment.  4th  ed.  London,  1695. 

Sherlock,  William.  (WmgS33io) 

A practical  discourse  concerning  death.  9th  ed.  London,  1696. 

Socrates  Scholasticus.  ^ Wmg  3 20^ 

Socratis  . . . et  . . . Sozomeni  Historia  ecclesiastica.  Moguntix,  1677. 

Stillingfleet,  Edward. 

A discourse  in  vindication  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  2d  ed.  London, 


1697. 

Stillingfleet,  Edward. 

Origines  saerx.  5th  ed.  London,  1680. 


(Wing  S5586) 
(Wing  S5620) 


Stillingfleet,  Edward. 

The  unreasonableness  of  separation.  3d  ed.  London,  1682.  (WingS5677) 


Taylor,  Jeremy. 

The  great  exemplar  of  sanctity.  4th  ed.  London,  1667. 

Tertullianus,  Quintus  Septimus  Florens. 

Opera.  Lutetix,  1634. 


(Wing  T345 ) 


Tillotson,  John. 

A seasonable  vindication  of  the  b.  Trinity.  London,  1697.  (Wing  T1221) 


Tillotson,  John. 

Sermons  and  discourses,  v.  3.  4th  ed.  London,  1694. 


(Wing  Ti  254) 


286  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

Tillotson,  John. 

Sermons  concerning  the  divinity.  2d  ed.  London,  1695.  (Wing  Ti  25  5 A) 


Tillotson,  John. 

Sermons  preach’d  upon  several  occasions.  1st  vol.  8th  ed.  London,  1694. 
Tillotson,  John.  (Wing  Ti  260) 

Sermons  preached  upon  several  occasions.  Second  vol.  6th  ed.  London,  1694. 

T , (Not  in  Wing) 

7 lllotson,  John. 

Sermons  preach’d  upon  several  occasions.  4th  vol.  London,  1695. 

Tillotson,  John.  (Wing  Ti  261) 

Several  discourses.  4th  vol.  London,  1697. 


Tillotson,  John. 

Six  sermons.  London,  1694. 

Tillotson,  John. 

Sixteen  sermons.  2d  vol.  London,  1696. 
Tillotson,  John. 

Sixteen  sermons.  3d  vol.  London,  1696. 


(Not  in  Wing) 
(Wing  T 1 268) 
(Not  in  Wing) 
(Wing  T 1 270) 


Turretin,  Francois. 

Compendium  theologize  didactico-elenctics.  Amstelodami,  1695. 

[Varen,  Bernhard.] 

Cosmography  and  geography.  3d  imp.  London,  1693.  (Wing  V104) 

Vossius,  Gerardus. 

Theses  theologies  et  histories.  Bellositi  Dobunorum,  1628.  (STC  24883) 


Wilson,  Thomas. 

A complete  Christian  dictionary.  8th  ed.  London,  1678.  (Wing  W2945) 


Books  added  since  1698 

An  answer  to  several  remarks  upon  Dr.  Henry  More  his  expositions.  London, 
1684.  (Wing  A3379) 

Basilius  C&sariensisy  Si. 

Opera  omnia.  Parisiis,  1638.  3 v. 

Bayle,  Pierre. 

Dictionnaire  historique  et  critique.  3e  ed.  Rotterdam,  1720.  4 v. 

Bible.  O.T.  Psalms.  English. 

The  Book  of  Psalms.  [By  Peter  Allix. ] London,  1701.  2 copes. 


The  King’s  Chapel  Library 


287 


1949] 


Bingham,  Joseph. 

The  works  of.  London,  1726.  2 v. 


Binius,  Severinus. 

Concilia  generalia  et  provincialia.  2a  ed.  Colonise  Agrippinas,  1618.  4 v.  in  5. 
Bray,  Thomas. 

Catechetical  discourses  on  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  covenant  of  grace.  Lon- 
don, 1701. 

Bull,  George. 

Opera  omnia.  Londini,  1703. 

Burnet,  Gilbert. 

An  exposition  of  the  thirty-nine  articles.  3d  ed.  corr.  London,  1705. 


Cassianus,  Johannes. 

De  institutis  coenibiorum.  Basel,  1485. 


(Stillwell  C2 1 o) 


Church  of  England. 

The  Book  of  common  prayer.  London,  [1731?]. 

Church  of  England. 

The  Book  of  common  prayer.  London,  1 766.  2 cofies. 

Cyrillus  H ierosolymitanus,  St.,  and  Synesius  Cyrenaeus , St. 

Opera  grxe.  lat.  [Lutetix  Parisiorum,  1631.] 

Dionysius  Areofagita , St. 

Opera  omnia  quse  extant.  Lutetix  Parisiorum,  1615. 

[Dodwell,  Henry.] 

Prxlectiones  academical.  Oxonii,  1692.  (Wing  Di 8 15) 

Edwards,  John. 

The  preacher.  The  third  part.  London,  1709. 


Hilarius  Pictaviensis,  St. 

Quotquot  extant  opera.  Parisiis,  1652. 

Irenaeus,  St. 

Contra  omnes  hxreses.  Oxonise,  1702. 

Josephus,  Flavius. 

Opera  . . . omnia.  Oxonii,  1720.  2 v. 

Keith,  George. 

An  exact  narrative  of  the  proceedings.  London,  1696.  (Wing  K161) 


Keith,  George. 

George  Keith’s  fifth  narrative.  London,  170 1. 


288  TThc  Colonial  Society  of  lYlassachusetts  [dec. 

Keith,  George. 

George  Keith’s  fourth  narrative.  London,  1700.  (Wing  K167) 

Keith,  George. 

A second  narrative.  London,  1697.  (Wing  K204) 

Keith,  George. 

A third  narrative.  London,  1698.  (Wing  K218) 

Leland,  John. 

A view  of  the  principal  deistical  writers.  3d  ed.  London,  1757.  2 v. 


[Leslie,  Charles.] 

A defence  of  a book  intituled,  The  snake  in  the  grass.  London,  1 700. 

Leslie,  Charles.  (Wing  Li  126) 

The  theological  works  of.  London,  1721.  2 v. 


Lloyd,  William. 

Series  chronologica.  Oxonian,  1700.  (Wing  L2698) 

Lucius,  Ludwig. 

Historia  ecclesiastica.  Basileas,  1624.  3 v. 


More,  Henry. 

Apocalypsis  Apocalypseos ; or  the  revelation.  London,  1680.  (Wing  M2641) 
More,  Henry. 

Discourses  on  several  texts.  London,  1692.  (Wing  M2649) 

More,  Henry. 

An  illustration  of  those  two  . . . Daniel.  London,  1685.  (Wing  M2662) 


More,  Henry. 

Paralipomena  prophetica  containing  several  supplements.  London,  1685. 

(Wing  M2669) 

More,  Henry.  v 6 

A plain  and  continued  exposition  of  . . . Daniel.  London,  1681. 

Nectarius.  (Wi„gM2673) 

Confutatio  imperii  Papas  in  ecclesiam.  Londini,  1702. 


Ralegh,  Sir  Walter. 

The  historie  of  the  world.  London,  1666. 


(Wing  R164) 


[Sage,  John.] 

A vindication  of  a discourse  entituled  The  principles  of  the  Cyprianic  age. 
London,  1701. 

[Sarpi,  Paolo.] 

The  historie  of  the  Councel  of  Trent.  London,  1620. 


(STC  21761) 


1949]  The  King’s  Chapel  Library  289 

Sherlock,  Thomas. 

Several  discourses  preached  at  the  Temple  Church.  London,  1756. 

Tena,  Luis  de. 

Commentaria  . . . Pauli  ad  Hebraeos.  Londini,  1661.  (Wing  T677) 

Theodoretus. 

Theodoreti  . . . et  Evagrii  . . . Historia  ccclcsiastica.  Moguntise,  1679. 
Walker,  John. 

An  attempt  towards  recovering  an  account  of  the  numbers  and  sufferings  of 
the  clergy.  London,  1714. 

West,  Gilbert. 

A defence  of  the  Christian  revelation.  London,  1748.  2 copes. 


February  Meeting,  1950 

A STATED  Meeting  of  the  Society  was  held  at  the  Club  of 
Odd  Volumes,  No.  77  Mount  Vernon  Street,  Boston,  on 
L Thursday,  23  February  1950,  at  three  o’clock  in  the 
afternoon,  the  President,  Augustus  Peabody  Loring,  Jr.,  in 
the  chair. 

The  records  of  the  last  Stated  Meeting  were  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

Mr.  William  Greenough  Wendell,  of  West  Hartford, 
Connecticut,  and  Mr.  John  Marshall  Phillips,  of  New  Ha- 
ven, Connecticut,  were  elected  Corresponding  Members  of  the 
Society. 

The  Reverend  Henry  Wilder  Foote  read  a paper  entitled: 
“Nathaniel  (Son  of  John)  Smibert,”  which  presented  material 
subsequently  published  in  his  John  Smihert  Painter , with  a De- 
scriptive Catalogue  of  Portraits , and  Notes  on  the  Work  of  Nathaniel 
Smihert  (Cambridge:  Harvard  University  Press,  1950). 


April  Meeting,  1950 

A STATED  Meeting  of  the  Society  was  held,  at  the  invita- 
tion of  Mr.  Augustus  Peabody  Loring,  Jr.,  at  No.  2 
" Gloucester  Street,  Boston,  on  Thursday,  27  April  1950, 
at  a quarter  before  nine  o’clock,  the  President,  Augustus  Pea- 
body Loring,  Jr.,  in  the  chair. 

The  records  of  the  last  Stated  Meeting  were  read  and  ap- 

• 

The  chair  appointed  the  following  committees  in  anticipation 
of  the  Annual  Meeting: 

To  nominate  candidates  for  the  several  offices, — Messrs.  El- 
liott Perkins  and  Fred  Norris  Robinson. 

To  examine  the  Treasurer’s  accounts, — Messrs.  Willard 
Goodrich  Cogswell  and  Arthur  Stanwood  Pier. 

To  arrange  for  the  Annual  Dinner, — Messrs.  Augustus  Pea- 
body Loring,  Jr.,  Samuel  Eliot  Morison  and  Walter  Muir 
Whitehill. 

Mr.  Henry  Morse  Channing  read  a paper  entitled:  “Mas- 
sachusetts’ Lost  ‘Liberties,’  John  Winthrop  the  Younger  and 
Castle  Hill,  Ipswich.” 


Journey  to  Middleborough 

6 June  1950 

ON  Tuesday,  6 June  1950,  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Peter  Oliver  in- 
vited the  Society  to  visit  them  at  Middleborough,  Massa- 
chusetts. Twenty-six  members  were  present,  the  majority 
of  whom  travelled  from  Boston  together  in  a New  York,  New 
Haven  and  Hartford  bus. 

As  the  day  was  fine,  luncheon  was  served  out  of  doors.  The 
members  greatly  enjoyed  the  opportunity  to  inspect  the  delight- 
ful house,  built  in  1769  by  Judge  Peter  Oliver  of  the  Superior 
Court  of  Judicature  for  his  son,  Dr.  Peter  Oliver.  After  luncheon 
some  wandered  through  the  pleasant  woods,  while  two  unusually 
rugged  guests  ventured  upon  the  Nemasket  River  in  a canoe. 

Although  no  shadow  of  a formal  meeting  marred  the  geniality 
of  this  country  journey,  Mr.  Oliver  placed  the  Society  further 
in  his  debt  by  offering  for  publication  in  these  T ransactions  a paper 
entitled: 


Judge  Oliver 

and  the 

Small  Oliver  House  in  Middleborough 

THE  small  Oliver  house  in  Middleborough  was  built  in  1769 
by  Judge  Peter  Oliver  of  the  Superior  Court  of  Judicature  for 
his  son  Dr.  Peter  Oliver  who,  on  the  first  of  February,  1770, 
was  to  marry  Sally,  the  eldest  daughter  of  Thomas  Hutchinson,  then 
Lieutenant  Governor  of  the  Province  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  and  shortly 
to  be  Governor. 

Presumably  the  building  of  the  house  began  toward  the  middle  of  the 
year.  When  we  had  to  replace  the  sills  a few  years  ago  we  found,  face  up, 
near  the  center  of  the  front  door,  upon  the  sill,  a brand  new  (or  what 
looked  as  though  it  had  been  brand  new  when  it  was  put  there)  penny 
with  the  date  1769.  It  seems  reasonable  that  this  must  have  taken  some 
time  to  get  to  the  colony  from  England,  so  we  deduce  the  spring  or  sum- 
mer as  the  time  the  house  was  started.  Scratched  into  the  cement  of  the 
foundations  of  the  right-hand  chimney  is  the  date  1769;  and  we  found  it 
again,  under  about  six  layers  of  wallpaper,  in  the  “best”  bedroom  closet. 


i95°]  Judge  Oliver  and  the  Oliver  House  293 

Despite  the  fact  that  there  are  a number  of  references  to  it  as  having  been 
built  in  1762,  and  the  fact  that  there  have  in  the  past  been  postcards  of  it, 
printed  hereabouts,  with  that  date  (one  of  these  postcards  even  adds  that 
the  house  was  seized  by  the  British  during  the  Revolution!),  there  is  no 
question  about  when  it  was  built,  or  under  what  circumstances.  Unfor- 
tunately not  very  much  more  is  known. 

It  is  almost  exactly  the  same  in  its  dimensions  as  the  Wythe  house  in 
Williamsburg;  windows  and  fireplaces  downstairs  and  up  are  the  same. 
The  halls  resemble  each  other,  the  stairs  and  bannisters  are  alike,  though 
these  turn  to  the  left  and  those  in  the  Wythe  house  to  the  right.  In  this 
house  the  stairs  rise  from  close  to  the  front  door,  which  leaves  a larger 
space  in  the  back  than  in  the  front  of  the  downstairs  hall.  In  the  Wythe 
house  this  is  reversed.  Here,  at  the  head  of  the  stairs  and  in  the  center  of 
the  house,  a partition  makes  a small  back  hall  off  which  open  four  rooms, 
two  good-sized  ones  on  the  sides  and  two  small  ones  in  the  middle.  The 
Wythe  house  does  not  have  the  wall  setting  off  the  back  hall,  nor  does  it 
have  the  two  very  small  bedrooms;  and  in  this  house  it  seems  as  though 
the  present  division  in  the  center  upstairs  was  not  part  of  the  original  plan. 

Judge  Oliver,  who  built  this  house  for  his  son,  was  the  youngest  son  of 
Daniel  Oliver,  merchant  of  Boston,  one-time  member  of  Her  Majesty’s 
Council,  and  his  wife  Elizabeth  Belcher  Oliver.  He  was  born  in  1713, 
was  graduated  from  Harvard  in  1730,  and  married,  in  1733,  Mary,  the 
daughter  of  William  Clark  of  Boston,  for  several  years  a member  of  the 
General  Court.  In  1744  he  left  Boston  for  Middleborough,  attracted, 
perhaps,  as  Weston’s  history  of  the  town  says,  by  the  beauty  of  the  place, 
and  probably  also  by  the  attention  it  had  received  as  a result  of  a petition 
of  the  remaining  Indians  living  here  at  Muttock,  as  this  part  was  called, 
that  they  be  allowed  to  move  farther  down  river  in  the  direction  of  Titicut. 
Conceivably  his  interest  may  have  been  turned  a little  in  this  direction 
by  the  fact  that  his  grandfather,  Captain  Peter  Oliver,  had  at  one  time 
owned  a part  of  Naushon  Island.  He  purchased  first  about  three  hundred 
acres,  including  the  dam  then  recently  authorized  by  the  town,  and  the 
water  privilege,  and  gradually  acquired  more  land.  Here  he  spent  the  next 
thirty  years  of  his  life. 

The  extent  to  which  he  developed  the  property  is  a little  hard  to  dis- 
cover at  the  distance  of  two  centuries.  A forge  was  erected  on  the  dam, 
there  was  a slitting  mill,  and  an  iron  furnace  known  as  Oliver’s  Furnace. 
There  is  a story  which  has  been  often  told  about  the  slitting  mill,  how  at 
the  time  the  Judge  acquired  his  property  here  there  was  only  one  such  mill 
in  this  part  of  the  country,  and  that  near  Milton.  No  one  is  supposed  then 


294  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [june 

to  have  known  the  method  of  its  operations  and  the  Judge  is  reported  to 
have  offered  a substantial  sum  of  money  to  one  Hushai  Thomas,  a skilful 
young  man  of  the  town,  if  he  would  build  him  a mill  to  produce  nail  rods 
as  good  as  those  made  in  Milton.  Mr.  Thomas  is  said  to  have  disappeared 
from  the  town  inexplicably,  and  it  was  observed  that  his  wife  and  family 
evinced  no  fears  as  to  his  whereabouts.  There  is  not  much  detail  in  the 
versions  of  this  story,  but  about  the  time  Thomas  disappeared  from  Mid- 
dleborough  an  unkempt  and  apparently  partly  demented  fellow  turned 
up  in  Milton,  and  through  friendship  with  town  children  gained  access  to 
the  works.  Eventually  Thomas  came  back.  The  foundations  of  the  slit- 
ting mill  were  laid  and  the  product,  when  finally  operations  began, 
equalled  that  of  any  other  part  of  the  country.  It  is  said  that  from  this 
point  the  situation  of  the  Thomas  family  showed  a marked  improvement. 

There  are  a few  letters  of  Judge  Oliver’s  left  which  show  him  to  have 
taken  an  active  part  in  the  operation  of  his  property.  One  in  1756  to  the 
“Hon’ble  Committee  of  War  about  two  howitzers  just  ordered,”  reads 
in  part: 

. . . Had  I known  of  your  having  occasion  for  them  ten  days  ago,  I could  have 
supplied  you,  but  I finished  my  Blast  three  or  four  days  since.  ...  I have  been 
to  a great  deal  of  trouble  and  Charge  to  secure  Mountain  ore  to  make  warlike 
stores  . . . for  guns  and  mortars.  . . . 

He  writes  of  being  sensible  of  the  “Risque  of  making  guns  and  mortars 
from  Bog  ore,  [so]  that  I shall  not  attempt  them  again  with  that.”  In 
another  letter  he  speaks  of  “granadoe”  shells,  and  of  having  “lent  Mr. 
Barker  my  Pattern  for  the  Mortars,”  and  of  having  sent  “vessel  after  ves- 
sel” for  material  for  another  furnace  which  would  have  made  possible  the 
much  speedier  supply  to  New  York  of  “Stores  of  such  consequence.” 

The  files  in  London  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Commissioners  of  Amer- 
ican Claims  throw  some  light  on  the  extent  of  his  interests  here.  He  was 
dispossessed,  he  wrote,  “of  an  estate  real  and  personal  which  was  compe- 
tent to  the  support  with  decency  of  his  large  family.” 

He  describes  his  private  business  as  having  been  of  a very  lucrative  na- 
ture. The  schedule  of  his  estate,  which  he  held  eventually  in  fee  simple 
with  his  son  Peter  Oliver,  Junior,  lists  the  large  forge,  70  feet  long  and 
50  feet  wide,  “almost  new”  (the  date  of  this  communication  is  1 1 March 
1784  and  presumably  refers  to  a situation  of  about  ten  years  earlier); 
the  slitting  mill  to  which  they  had  an  exclusive  right  in  New  England 
by  Act  of  Parliament;  a saw  mill,  grist  mill,  boulting  mill,  and  cider  mill; 
an  anchor  shop,  blacksmith  shop,  and  “machine  for  weighing  carts  and 


j95o]  Judge  Oliver  and  the  Oliver  House  295 

their  ladings.”  There  was  a barn  90  feet  long  and  40  feet  wide  for  char- 
coal; there  were  three  hundred  and  fifty  acres  of  woodland,  within  two 
miles  of  the  aforesaid  works,  worth  “twenty  shillings  per  acre”;  and  one 
hundred  acres  of  improved  land  adjoining.  There  were  five  dwelling 
houses,  barns,  threshing  house,  and  orchard. 

These  were  what  pertained  to  the  business  that  he  had  developed  and 
not  to  the  property  adjoining  his  iron  works  where  stood  his  “large  dwell- 
ing house,  stables  and  outhouses,  garden  and  orchard,”  and  another 
“good  dwelling  house,”  the  whole  fenced  in  with  stone  walls.  He  listed 
separately  his  land  in  other  parts  of  the  Province,  and  his  interest  in  a 
dock  called  Oliver’s  Dock  in  Boston  which  today  is  known  as  Rowe’s 
Wharf. 

In  a letter  from  Birmingham  in  1787  he  says  “that  most  of  the  iron 
works  in  the  province  were  upon  a small  scale,  and  generally  were  owned 
by  a number  of  proprietors”  who  supplied  them  from  their  own  labor  and 
from  a swamp  ore  of  little  cost.  Here,  perhaps,  he  is  remembering  his  ex- 
perience of  thirty-one  years  earlier  of  the  “Risque  of  making  guns  . . . from 
Bog  ore.”  Most  of  these  operations  were  winter  works  and  were  built  on 
small  streams  often  exhausted  by  summer  droughts.  “On  the  contrary,” 
he  writes,  “my  stream  [this  is  the  Nemasket  which  flows  beside  us]  was 
supplied  from  five  ponds,  the  lower  one  was  always  reputed  nine  miles 
round ; the  next  ten  miles  long,  two  others,  each  four  or  five  miles,  and 
one  of  about  three  miles  round,  all  of  which  could  supply  me  with  a con- 
stant flow  of  water.  I have  often  had  eight  wheels  going  at  the  same  time, 
on  one  dam,  and  waste  water  for  eight  wheels  more.  . . .” 

He  writes  that  his  works  “were  also  situated  so  as  to  reduce  my  land 
carriage  of  ten  miles,  to  water  carriage  to  New  York,  from  whence  I 
furnished  myself  with  pig  iron.”  Several  months  in  the  year  he  could  con- 
vey his  pig  iron  to  within  a few  yards  of  his  forge  by  water.  He  mentions 
also  that  he  was  but  fifteen  miles  land  carriage  to  whence  he  could  convey 
his  goods  to  Boston  by  water. 

All  of  this  was  built  up  out  of  his  thirty  years  in  Middleborough,  but 
most  of  the  work  must  have  been  done  before  his  appointment  to  the  Su- 
perior Court  in  1756.  Even  from  1744  he  was  continuously  employed  in 
the  service  of  the  Crown  and  of  the  Province  as  Commissioner  of  the 
Peace,  Judge  of  the  Inferior  Court,  of  the  Quorum,  of  the  Superior  Court ; 
as  member  of  His  Majesty’s  Council,  and  as  Justice  of  the  Peace  through- 
out the  entire  province.  During  the  years  he  served  on  the  Superior  Court 
he  said  that  he  travelled  1,100,  1,200,  and  even  1,500  miles  per  year  to  at- 
tend the  business  of  thirteen  counties. 


296  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [june 

It  may  properly  be  noted  that  for  none  of  these  services  had  he  received 
any  compensation  in  the  form  of  salary  until  His  Majesty  granted  him  a 
salary  in  1772  as  Chief  Justice.  Even  this  he  did  not  accept  until  one  of 
his  fellow  justices,  Judge  Trowbridge,  was  persuaded  to  refuse  a salary 
as  justice  from  the  Crown  and  accept  it  only  as  from  the  General  Court. 
At  this  Judge  Oliver  accepted  the  offer  from  the  King. 

This  salary  was  the  bribe  for  accepting  which  he  was  impeached.  In 
1774,  banished,  his  return  forbidden  under  pain  of  death,  his  property 
confiscated,  he  sailed  for  England.  It  was  the  end  of  March  when  “about 
70  sail”  set  out  from  Nantasket  for  Halifax.  “Here,”  he  wrote  in  his  di- 
ary, “I  took  my  leave  of  that  once  happy  country  where  peace  and  plenty 
reigned  uncontrolled,  till  that  infernal  Hydra  Rebellion,  with  its  hun- 
dred heads  had  devoured  its  happiness,  spread  desolation  over  its  fields, 
and  ravaged  the  peaceful  mansions  of  its  inhabitants.  . . . Here  I bid 
Adieu  to  that  shore  which  I never  wish  to  tread  again  till  that  greatest  of 
social  blessings,  a firm,  established  British  Government,  precedes  or  ac- 
companies me  thither.”  He  and  his  son  Peter  Junior,  of  this  house,  were 
the  fourth  and  fifth  generations  of  the  family  to  have  lived  in  this  coun- 
try. He  never  returned,  nor  did  any  of  his  descendants,  nor  any  of 
the  Hutchinsons  who  sailed  with  them.  Mary  Sanford  Oliver  of  St. 
John’s,  New  Brunswick,  in  1851  wrote  to  her  cousin,  my  grandfather 
Andrew  Oliver  in  Boston,  “I  have  often  heard  my  mother  speak  of  the 
shipload  of  Olivers  and  Hutchinsons  who  at  the  time  of  the  Revolution 
went  to  England  calling  themselves  ‘sturdy  beggars.’  ” 

The  last  years  of  the  Chief  Justice’s  life  were  passed  in  England.  He 
compiled  and  published  a Scripture  Lexicon  which  went  through  several 
editions,  and  which  was  for  a time  used  as  a textbook  at  Oxford.  Shortly 
after  his  return  Oxford  gave  him  the  honorary  degree  of  D.C.L.  Hutch- 
inson received  the  same  degree  at  the  same  time,  and  is  said  to  have  valued 
it  more  than  any  honor  bestowed  upon  him.  The  event  is  described  in  his 
diary.  “After  putting  on  the  Doctor’s  scarlet  gowns,  and  bands,  and  caps, 
[we]  were  introduced  into  the  Theatre,  . . . presented  separately  to  the 
Vice-Chancellor  who  conferred  the  degrees  of  Doctor,  In  Jure,  Civile, 
Honoris  Causa.”  (This  was  the  degree  that  only  recently  before  had  been 
given  to  Dr.  Johnson,  and  in  our  time  to  Mr.  Winston  Churchill.)  The 
Judge  also  describes  the  scene,  with  the  two  thousand  spectators,  “the 
ladies  by  themselves  in  brilliant  order  . . . the  theatre  a most  noble  build- 
ing . . . the  accompaniment  of  music,  orchestral  and  vocal.” 

The  happiest  years  of  the  Judge’s  life  were  surely  spent  here  in  Middle- 
borough,  particularly  here,  just  across  the  river,  on  the  westernmost  of 


The  house  in  Middle  borough,  Massachusetts,  built  by  Chief  Justice  Peter  Oliver  in  1769  for  his 
son,  Peter  Oliver,  on  the  occasion  of  his  marriage  to  Sally  Hutchinson, 
daughter  of  Governor  Thomas  Hutchinson. 


Mrs.  Daniel  Oliver 

Elizabeth  Belcher , daughter  of  Hon.  Andrew  Belcher,  and  sister  of 
Governor  Jonathan  Belcher;  married  23  April  1696  Daniel  Oliver; 
died  1735;  mother  of  Chief  Justice  Peter  Oliver  and  grandmother  of 
Peter  Oliver,  Jr.,  for  whom  the  Middleborough  house  was  built. 

Portrait  by  John  Smibert  owned  by  Mrs.  Richard  Oliver 
and  Miss  Prudence  Oliver. 


Three  Oliver  Brothers  (Daniel,  Andrew,  and  Peter) 

Three  sons  of  Daniel  and  Elizabeth  ( Belcher ) Oliver,  Daniel,  Jr.  (i 703/4-1 727),  Andrew  (1706- 
1774),  Lieutenant  Governor  of  Massachusetts,  and  Peter  (1713-1791). 

Copy  by  George  Smith,  owned  by  Mrs.  Richard  H.  Lawrence  a7td  Miss  Prudence  Oliver, 

of  portrait  by  John  Smibert. 


Chief  Justice  Peter  Oliver 

Peter  Oliver,  son  of  Daniel  and  Elizabeth  ( Belcher ) Oliver;  born  Bos- 
ton, 2 6 March  1713;  graduated  from  Harvard  1730;  married  Mary, 
daughter  of  William  and  Hannah  (Appleton)  Clark,  5 July  1733; 
Chief  Justice  of  Massachusetts.  He  lived  in  Boston  until  the  outbreak 
of  the  Revolution , when,  being  a Loyalist,  he  went  to  England  where 
he  lived  in  Birmingham  until  his  death  in  October  1791.  He  built  the 
Middleborough  house  for  his  son  Peter  Oliver  in  1769. 

Portrait  by  John  Smibert  owned  by  Mrs.  Richard  Oliver 
and  Miss  Prudence  Oliver. 


Chief  Justice  Peter  Oliver  weeping  by  the  grave  of  his  wife ; 
oil  portrait  by  John  Singleton  Copley , owned  by 
Mrs.  Richard  H.  Lawrence  and  Miss  Prudence  Oliver. 


V > 


A,.-'  N;  1 


v \ m 

i 1 & 

/ MEo 

Ml'  > ■ 

* Hi  ■ * ' SB 

Peter  Oliver  (1767-1831) 

Pastel  by  Michele  Felice  Come , owned  by 
Mrs.  Richard  H.  Lawrence  and  Miss  Prudence  Oliver. 


Thomas  Fitch  Oliver  (1779-1821) 

Pastel  by  Michele  Felice  Come, 

owned  by  Mrs.  Richard  H.  Lawrence  and  Miss  Prudence  Oliver, 


1 95°]  Judge  Oliver  and  the  Oliver  House  297 

the  two  Muttock  hills  where  he  lived.  This  had  been  the  meeting  place  of 
the  Indians,  and  when  the  first  settlers  ventured  west  from  Plymouth  to 
meet  Massassoit,  it  was  probably  here  that  the  meeting  occurred. 

But  Europeans  had  known  a little  of  this  country  for  a long  time  before 
then.  In  1524  Verrazzano  the  Florentine  was  somewhere  in  Buzzards 
Bay  for  fifteen  days  and  noted  the  goodly  stature  and  shape  of  “two 
kings”  that  he  met.  Martin  Pring  was  along  the  coast  in  1603,  and  after 
him  Captain  W eymouth  and  Bartholomew  Gosnold ; Hunt  was  left  here 
in  1614  by  Captain  John  Smith.  Dernier,  or  Dermier,  who  was  here  in 
1618,  rescued  the  nameless  French  sailor  who  had  been  wrecked  on  the 
coast  three  years  before.  Dernier  ventured  inland,  a one  day’s  journey  to 
the  westward  to  Nemasket.  “Here,”  he  recorded,  “I  redeemed  a French- 
man.” 

Nemasket,  the  name  of  the  river,  means,  in  the  Indian  language,  the 
place  of  fish;  Assawompsett,  the  pond  to  the  southward  from  which  the 
river  rises,  means  the  place  of  white  stones;  Titicut,  downstream  a few 
miles,  the  place  whither  in  1737  the  Indians  petitioned  to  be  allowed  to 
move,  means  the  place  of  the  great  river.  It  is  at  Titicut  that  the  Nemas- 
ket joins  the  Taunton  River,  and  an  account  of  the  Indians  in  the  Mid- 
dleborough  Gazette  for  10  September  1859  says  t^lat  J°^n  Eliot,  in  his 
Bible  for  the  Indians,  translated  Euphrates  as  Titicut.  This  is  the  sort 
of  reference  that  the  casual  historian  is  reluctant  to  check  lest  it  turn  out 
not  to  be  true. 

The  Indians  that  lived  here,  the  Wampanoags,  cast  their  lines  in  pleas- 
ant places.  The  meeting  place  of  the  sachems  on  the  Muttock  hill  is  one 
of  the  few  places  in  this  part  of  the  country  where  there  is  a view.  From 
there,  on  a fine  day,  one  can  see  the  salt  water  at  Plymouth,  and  the 
country  opens  away  wide  and  handsome  to  the  northeast.  The  country 
here  abounds  in  ponds  and  lakes,  and  there  are  numerous  springs  of  sweet 
water  and  good  hunting  and  good  fishing.  The  herring  played  an  impor- 
tant part  in  the  life  of  the  community.  The  Indians  ate  the  fish  in  a num- 
ber of  different  ways  as  they  caught  them,  and  they  also  smoked  and  dried 
them  for  a ready  supply  in  the  fall  and  winter. 

The  rights  to  take  the  fish  (the  ones  that  run  here  are  alewives)  have 
always  been  jealously  guarded  by  the  towns.  The  objection  against  dam- 
ming the  river  here  came  from  fear  as  to  what  it  would  do  to  the  run  of 
herring.  In  some  places  fish  ladders  were  built  over  the  dams.  No  subject 
in  the  Commonwealth  has  given  rise  to  more  enactments  than  that  re- 
lating to  the  taking  of  the  herring.  In  the  early  days  each  person  in  the 
town,  for  a slight  fee,  was  allowed  200  fish.  Widows  and  spinsters  were 


298  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [june 

supplied  by  the  town.  In  1706  the  price  was  six  pence  a load,  first  come 
first  served.  In  1725  it  was  agreed  that  8,000  fish  should  be  accounted  a 
load  and  that  each  man  that  had  had  no  fish  the  year  before  should 
have  them  first,  “provided  they  have  their  cart  ready  at  the  weir,  and  not 
else.”  They  were  used  mostly  for  fertilizer— the  Indians  taught  them  this — 
and  the  rule  was  one  fish  to  one  hill  of  corn.  From  this  came  the  expression 
still  heard  occasionally  of  referring  to  a field  as  “all  herring’d  out.” 

In  recent  years  they  have  not  come  regularly,  due  perhaps  to  the  pol- 
lution of  the  water  that  seems  to  come  with  progress.  But  last  year  and 
this  year  in  April  they  ran  again.  Just  below  the  dam  here  by  the  road  the 
water  was  black  with  them;  it  gave  the  impression  that  one  could  walk 
across  on  top  of  them.  Children  reached  in  and  pulled  them  out.  They 
struggled  so  furiously  up  that  from  time  to  time  they  would  jump  them- 
selves out  of  the  water  and  onto  the  banks,  where  they  were  low,  to  the 
satisfaction  of  a flock  of  herring  gulls  that  wheeled  incessantly  overhead  all 
the  time  the  fish  were  here.  And  I watched  them  last  year,  when  they  came 
to  the  dam,  not  jump  it  but  swim  up  it!  This  sounds  incredible  and  must 
be  seen  to  be  believed. 

Seven  Indian  trails  met  here  in  the  lands  of  the  Nemaskets  at  Middle- 
borough.  These  are  mentioned  in  early  deeds  and  in  many  cases  became 
boundary  lines;  the  one  from  Plymouth  passed  in  front  of  where  this 
house  is  and  became  the  public  highway;  it  is  the  Plymouth  Street  of 
today.  Mourt’s  Relation  describes  it  as  seen  by  Bradford  and  Miles  Stand- 
ish  on  their  second  adventure,  30  November.  “The  next  morning  we 
followed  certain  beaten  paths  and  tracks  of  the  Indians  into  the  woods. 
After  a while  we  came  upon  a very  broad  beaten  path  well  nigh  ten 
feet  broad.” 

The  early  settlers  as  they  came  a little  to  the  west  here  were  struck 
by  the  resemblance  of  some  of  this  land  by  the  river  to  park  land  in  parts 
of  England ; here  it  had  all  been  burnt  over  so  that  only  the  tall  trees  re- 
mained. They  were  surprised  by  the  extensive  cultivation.  They  were 
only  a few  years  after  the  great  plague  which  had  wiped  out  so  many  of 
the  Indians  in  1617  or  1619,  and  they  noticed  that  “here  have  been  many 
towns  . . . the  ground  is  very  good  on  both  sides  (of  the  river).  ...  A 
pity  it  was  to  see  so  many  goodly  fields  and  so  well  seated  without  the 
men  to  dress  and  manure  them  . . . upon  this  river  dwelleth  Massassoit.” 

Hopkins  and  Winslow  in  the  summer  of  1621  were  welcomed  by  the 
Indians  and  given  an  abundant  repast  of  the  spawn  of  shad  and  of  a 
kind  of  bread  called  maizum  and  of  boiled  musty  acorns.  They  found  the 
Indians  fishing  on  a weir,  probably  where  the  river  widens  just  across 


1950]  Judge  Oliver  and  the  Oliver  House  299 

Plymouth  Street  from  here.  Their  first  night  they  spent  with  Massassoit; 
on  his  bed,  in  fact,  a wooden  platform  about  a foot  off  the  ground,  of  which 
the  two  whites  had  half  and  Massassoit  and  his  wife  the  other  half.  This 
was  probably  across  the  river  on  the  Muttock  hill  or  a little  farther  to 
the  cast  on  what  is  called  now  Fort  Hill,  where  one  of  the  town  high 
schools  stands.  They  recorded  that  they  found  the  Indian  custom  of  sing- 
ing themselves  to  sleep  not  conducive  to  slumber  in  their  case. 

The  next  evening  they  returned  to  the  weir  where  the  Indians  had 
been  fishing.  “It  pleased  God  to  give  them  a good  store  of  fish  so  we  were 
well  refreshed  when  we  went  to  bed.” 

In  1660  Massassoit  died  of  the  plague  and  left  two  sons,  Wamsutta 
and  Pometican.  Hubbard  says  of  Wamsutta,  who  was  also  called  Alex- 
ander, “that  he  had  neither  affection  to  the  persons,  nor  to  the  religion,  of 
the  whites.”  He  plotted  against  the  English,  and  on  an  expedition  to 
Marshfield  to  treat  with  them  he  fell  sick  in  Winslow’s  house,  was  taken 
to  Governor  Bradford’s  in  Plymouth  and  then,  continuing  sick,  carried 
by  his  people  “to  their  wading  place  at  Nemasket.”  This  is  about  a mile 
upstream  from  here.  There  they  embarked  in  canoes  but  he  died  before 
he  reached  home. 

His  brother  Pometican  became  Sachem  and  war  between  the  Indians 
and  the  whites  began  and  spread  throughout  this  part  of  Massachusetts 
and  into  Rhode  Island.  It  ended  with  the  death  of  Pometican,  shot  and 
then  beheaded.  He,  like  his  brother  Wamsutta,  had  changed  his  name 
and  the  war  is  called  after  him,  King  Philip’s  War. 

This  was  the  beginning  of  the  decline  of  the  Indians,  unless,  indeed, 
the  date  be  put  farther  back  to  the  arrival  of  Verrazzano  or  perhaps  even 
that  of  Columbus  to  the  south.  Here  in  Middleborough,  by  1793,  there 
were  but  eight  families,  poor,  improvident,  and  intemperate;  and  in  1831 
the  last  of  them,  Ben  Simonds,  said  to  have  been  a Revolutionary  soldier, 
was  buried  by  the  side  of  Assawompsett  Pond  in  Lakeville.  There  is  a 
small  monument  to  his  memory  still  there.  Recently  his  remains  are  said 
to  have  been  dug  up  and  taken  to  Harvard.  This  may  not  be  so,  but  it  seems 
unpleasantly  likely. 

The  oldest  burial  place  of  the  Indians  was  on  the  hill  across  from  what 
was  the  site  of  Oliver  Hall.  Today  there  is  not  much  trace  left  of  the 
Indian  graves,  and  there  is  almost  none  of  Oliver  Hall. 

About  twenty  acres  of  the  land  that  Judge  Oliver  acquired  when  he 
came  here  in  1744  he  enclosed  after  the  manner  of  an  English  park.  The 
driveway  came  in  to  the  eastward  on  the  north  side  of  the  hill  and  led 
through  an  orchard;  then  dividing,  one  part  toward  the  river,  the  other 


300  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [june 

to  the  south,  came  round  through  gardens  to  the  front  of  the  hall. 

There  are,  so  far  as  I know,  no  contemporary  plans  or  drawings  either 
of  the  property  or  the  house,  and  Thomas  Weston’s  sketch  of  the  life  of 
the  Chief  Justice,  his  history  of  the  towns,  occasional  letters  and  articles 
in  the  Nemasket  Gazette y later  the  Middleborough  Gazette , and  certain  of 
the  files  of  the  claims  of  the  loyalists  which  are  unpublished  but  available  in 
London,  these  are  the  sources  of  most  of  the  information  here. 

The  grounds  were  planted  with  shrubs  and  flowers;  John  Adams’  di- 
ary speaks  of  these.  The  avenue  was  lined  with  ornamental  trees.  What 
was  called,  and  what  is  still  called  here,  Oliver’s  Walk  made  a half  circle 
about  the  Hall  along  the  edge  of  the  river.  In  a cleft  in  the  hill  to  the 
south  of  the  Hall  and  halfway  between  the  top  and  the  river  there  was  a 
spring  and  spring  house  which  is  also  referred  to  as  the  banqueting  house 
and  as  the  summer  pavilion.  The  spring  was  used  to  cool  the  wine  on 
summer  days  and  a few  of  the  dark  green  bottles  with  PO  stamped  or 
blown  on  them  still  exist.  My  father  has  one  of  them. 

In  the  Judge’s  diary  there  is  a description  of  a visit  made  in  England 
to  the  country  house  of  Lord  Edgecombe,  and  of  a walk  there  which 
“filled  the  mind  with  pleasure.”  “But  I was  in  one  walk,”  he  writes,  “de- 
prived of  pleasure  for  a moment  it  being  so  like  a serpentine  walk  of 
mine  on  the  banks  of  the  river  Nemasket  . . . (so)  that  I was  snatched 
from  where  I now  was,  to  the  loss  of  where  I had  so  late  been,  in  the 
arms  of  contentment.” 

The  Hall  was  built  with  a steep  roof  and  deep  jutting  eaves,  with 
walls  of  white  plaster  and  portico  of  oak.  Its  frame  is  said  to  have  been 
shipped  from  England,  and  the  interior  decorations,  carvings,  wainscot- 
ing, and  hangings  made  expressly  for  it  in  London. 

The  large  hall  opened  to  the  east  on  the  river  and  was  wainscoted  with 
English  oak.  The  upper  part  of  it  is  said  to  have  been  decorated  with 
hangings  of  birds  and  flowers.  The  ceilings  were  high.  Both  Adams  and 
Judge  Sewall  speak  of  the  pleasure  they  had  in  visiting  the  Hall.  Mrs. 
Norcutt,  who  was  the  housekeeper  and  who  lived  on  here  in  Middlebor- 
ough long  after  the  Judge  and  his  family  had  been  banished,  wrote,  “I  re- 
member one  day  hearing  Governor  Hutchinson  say  to  Judge  Oliver  as 
they  were  walking  in  the  garden  together  ‘Judge  Oliver,  you  have  here 
one  of  the  loveliest  spots  in  all  his  Majesty’s  colony.’  ” 

There  are  a few  little  anecdotes  about  it;  that  the  oaken  floor  in  the 
big  parlor  was  so  polished  that  on  one  occasion  a maid  slipped  and  spilt  tea 
and  cream  on  the  gown  of  one  of  the  ladies,  staining  her  white  satin  slip- 
per, whereupon  the  enraged  guest  from  Boston  drew  off  her  slipper  and 


1950]  judge  Oliver  and  the  Oliver  House  301 

spanked  her  soundly  “in  high  dudgeon.”  This  does  not  speak  too  well 
for  the  Boston  lady’s  manners.  One  night  in  1762  there  was  a notable 
company  gathered  when  a messenger  came  riding  up  the  avenue  swing- 
ing his  hat  and  shouting,  “Long  live  the  King!  A Prince  has  been  born 
to  the  royal  house  of  England.”  Governor  Hutchinson  was  there  that 
night  and  his  brother-in-law  (they  had  married  Margaret  and  Mary 
Sanford),  Lieutenant  Governor  Andrew  Oliver,  who  was  the  Judge’s 
elder  brother.  '1  his  is  another  recollection  of  Mrs.  Norcutt  and  she  says 
that  Andrew  wore  a suit  of  scarlet  velvet  and  short  breeches,  long  white 
silk  stockings  with  knee  and  shoe  buckles,  and  that  Hutchinson  was 
dressed  the  same,  though  his  suit  was  of  blue.  With  this  much  about  the 
appearance  of  the  family  it  is  perhaps  only  fair  to  record  the  comment 
in  Hawthorne’s  American  Notes , on  seeing  the  Oliver  portraits  in  Salem  in 
1837,  to  the  effect  that  the  clothes  of  the  family  are  generally  better  than 
the  faces.  And  the  Governor  was  not  remarkably  handsome.  He  had  what, 
in  my  family,  we  call  an  Oliver  nose  which  inspired  the  couplet  in  a Bos- 
ton paper: 

When  Hutchinson  came  the  people  arose 

To  clear  a place  to  land  his  nose. 

The  library  was  separate  from  the  house  and  connected  by  a latticed 
gallery  and  here  were  the  family  portraits.  In  the  Judge’s  list  of  things 
in  the  house  he  mentions  eight  portraits.  Some  of  these  may  have  been 
the  two  small  Smiberts  here;  there  are  two  others  belonging  to  my  two 
brothers  and  one  of  the  Judge’s  mother,  as  a widow,  which  my  father 
has.  A daughter-in-law  who  lived  on  here  as  a widow  after  the  Revolu- 
tion and  died  in  1832  is  mentioned  in  an  article  in  the  Middleborough  Ga- 
zette of  10  September  1859  as  haying  had  a full-length  portrait  of  the 
Judge.  (She  also  remembered  that  he  was  fond  of  Pope  and  of  Thom- 
son’s Seasons.)  That  may  have  been  in  the  Hall.  The  larger  portraits  by 
Smibert  and  Blackburn  and  the  Copley  miniatures  which  my  father  has 
belonged  not  to  Peter  Oliver,  the  Judge,  but  to  Lieutenant  Governor 
Andrew,  his  elder  brother,  who  also  owned  the  portrait  of  the  three 
brothers  of  which  there  is  a copy  here. 

Also  in  the  library,  in  addition  to  the  books  and  portraits,  was  on  one 
side  the  family  coat  of  arms,  and  on  the  other,  in  loyal  tory  style,  the  bust 
of  King  George  and  the  banner  of  England. 

The  gayest  celebration  at  the  big  house  was  probably  the  wedding 
reception  for  Dr.  Peter  Oliver,  Junior,  and  his  bride  Sally.  There  were 
guests  from  town  and  even  from  abroad,  and  they  are  said  to  have  stayed 
four  days.  One  lady’s  hair  was  so  puffed  and  powdered  and  rolled  high 


302  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [june 

on  her  head  that  she  is  said  to  have  sat  up  all  night  so  as  not  to  spoil  her 
hairdresser’s  work.  Another  slept  with  her  hands  tied  over  her  head  so 
that  they  might  be  white  for  the  approaching  reception. 

Considering  the  dangers  and  uncertainties  of  the  times  it  is  almost  ex- 
traordinary that  any  carefree  occasions  can  have  occurred.  It  was  only 
four  years  before  that  Hutchinson’s  house  in  Milton  had  been  destroyed 
by  the  mob.  He  had  been  warned  of  the  danger  and  when  he  heard  of 
the  approach  of  the  crowd  he  had  the  house  closed  and  secured  as  well  as 
he  could  and  sent  his  family  away  to  safety,  determined  to  face  the  mob 
himself. 

At  the  last  moment  Sally  came  back,  the  Sally  who  was  to  come  to  this 
house  as  a bride,  and  protested  that  she  would  not  leave  while  her  father 
stayed.  “I  could  not  stand  against  this,”  he  wrote,  and  withdrew  with 
her.  As  they  left  by  the  back  of  the  house  they  heard  the  axes  splitting 
the  doors  and  voices  cry  “Damn  him,  he’s  upstairs,  we’ll  have  him ! ” Part 
of  the  inventory  of  the  contents  mentions  little  details  that  one  hates  to  as- 
sociate with  violence;  of  his  daughter’s  “ruffles,  and  laced  fly  caps,  rid- 
ing hoods  and  ribbons,  capes  and  petticoats,  gloves  and  shoes,  and  muffs 
and  tippets  and  so  on.”  Afterward  the  house  of  Andrew  Oliver  was  de- 
stroyed; and  when  the  Lieutenant  Governor  died  the  Chief  Justice  was 
warned  by  young  Thomas  Hutchinson  that  his  life  would  be  endangered 
if  he  attended  his  brother’s  funeral. 

To  Mrs.  Norcutt  again  is  owed  the  account  of  Judge  Oliver’s  last 
visit  to  Middleborough,  of  his  ride  down  from  Boston  to  reach  the  Hall 
on  the  edge  of  the  evening,  travel-stained  and  weary.  He  entered  the 
house,  collected  a few  valuables  from  a secret  drawer  and,  bidding  fare- 
well to  his  housekeeper,  left,  not  to  return  again. 

For  a few  years  the  Hall  stayed  as  it  was,  but  violence  had  long  been 
expected  and,  at  last,  on  the  night  of  4 November  1778,  the  cry  went 
up  that  the  Hall  was  afire.  The  library  burned  first,  and  the  crowd  broke 
in  trying  to  lay  their  hands  on  what  they  could.  Parts  of  the  hangings  in 
the  lower  hall  of  the  birds  and  flowers  were  torn  off,  and  it  is  said  that 
for  years  afterward  the  women  of  the  town  wore  pieces  of  them  in  their 
hair  as  mementos  of  the  days  “when  George  was  King  and  Oliver  was 
Judge.” 

Mrs.  Norcutt  made  her  way  into  the  great  parlor  and  found  a piece 
of  money  “about  the  size  of  a dollar”  in  the  money  closet.  She  kept  it,  for 
she  said  it  always  reminded  her  of  that  last  visit  of  Judge  Oliver,  and 
of  his  looks,  so  tired  and  careworn.  She  tried  to  save  Madam  Oliver’s 


J 9 5 o ] Judge  Oliver  and  the  Oliver  House  303 

rosebush,  a present  from  England  which  grew  over  the  portico,  but  she 
could  not;  the  heat  was  too  intense. 

In  this  small  house  of  Peter  and  Sally  Oliver  where  they  lived  for  the 
better  part  of  five  years  there  were  some  happy  occasions,  surely,  at  least, 
when  their  three  children  were  born,  Margaret  in  1771,  Thomas  Hutch- 
inson in  1772,  and  Peter  in  1774.  When  he  was  at  college  Peter  had 
lived  with  Sally’s  brother  Elisha,  and  it  was  through  him  that  he  began 
to  see  a good  deal  of  the  Hutchinsons.  He  notes  in  his  diary  the  first  time 
he  met  her,  and  refers  later  to  a very  agreeable  way  in  her  behavior 
“which  I remember  pleased  me  beyond  any  other  of  my  female  acquaint- 
ance,” though  (he  added)  “I  had  not  the  least  thought  of  any  connection 
with  her.”  After  the  Hutchinson  house  was  destroyed  he  went  to  see  the 
family  and  found  Sally  “most  terribly  worried  and  distrest.”  That  spring 
he  “had  obtained  leave  of  her  father”  to  pay  his  addresses.  He  writes  that 
the  family  were  very  agreeable  and  says  “I  found  that  courtship  was  the 
most  pleasant  part  of  my  life  hereto.”  He  seems  to  have  been  fond  of 
dividing  his  life  into  periods.  There  is  one  bright  note  in  his  diary  that  I 
have  always  enjoyed.  Apropos  of  his  marriage  he  wrote,  “Here  ends  the 
happiest  period  of  my  life.”  I have  always  hoped  that  Sally  never  read  this. 

He  does  not  seem  to  have  shared  the  regard  toward  his  native  land 
that  his  father  showed  to  the  end  of  his  life.  When  in  1814  the  Massachu- 
setts Historical  Society  asked  to  borrow  the  only  perfect  manuscript  of 
Hubbard’s  History  oj  New  E?igla?id,  which  he  had  inherited,  he  is  said  to 
have  sent  a surly  refusal. 

It  should  be  remembered,  in  extenuation,  that  these  misfortunes,  and 
in  his  case  they  were  very  real  misfortunes,  came  when  he  was  young;  and 
from  his  point  of  view  the  turnings  of  the  times  .must  have  been  bitter  to 
watch. 

It  w*as  shortly  after  this  house  was  built  that  the  reception  was  held  here 
for  Benjamin  Franklin.  Very  little  is  known  about  it,  by  me  at  least;  but 
ever  since  the  yellow  room  here  in  the  front  of  the  house  has  been  called 
the  Franklin  room.  It  was  Franklin  who,  a few  years  later,  was  to  make 
public  parts  of  some  private  correspondence  of  the  Judge  and  Governor, 
letters  shown  Franklin  with  the  understanding  that  they  not  be  pub- 
lished. Needless  to  say,  they  were  published.  I have  never  been  able  to  un- 
derstand why  the  Franklin  party  was  held  here,  rather  than  in  the  Hall, 
since  it  must  have  been  before  the  incident  of  the  letters;  and  I have  always 
hoped  that  it  may  have  been  that  the  Judge  would  not  have  Mr.  Franklin 
in  the  house  at  any  stage  of  his  career. 


304  The  Colonial  Society  of  Aiassachusetts  [june 

I have  said  a great  deal  about  the  members  of  my  family.  Let  me  offer 
in  justification  a quotation  from  Daniel  Webster: 

There  is  a moral  and  philosophical  respect  for  our  ancestors  which  elevates  the 
character  and  improves  the  heart.  Next  to  the  sense  of  religion  and  moral  feel- 
ing I hardly  know  what  should  bear  with  stronger  obligations  on  a liberal  and 
enlightened  mind  than  a consciousness  of  an  alliance  with  excellence  which  is 
departed,  and  a consciousness  too,  that  in  its  acts  and  conduct,  and  even  in  senti- 
ments and  thoughts,  it  may  be  actively  operating  on  the  happiness  of  those  who 
come  after  it. 

I am  sorry  that  I have  not  had  more  that  I could  say  about  this  house 
and  the  Peter  Oliver  for  whom  it  was  built.  The  schedule  of  his  personal 
estate  mentions  the  furnishings  in  the  house,  the  linen  and  silver,  china 
and  glass,  kitchen  furniture,  wearing  apparel,  tongs,  shovels  and  and- 
irons, etc.  In  addition  to  the  small  items  he  listed  “an  eight  day  clock,  two 
dining  tables,  two  tea  tables,  and  14  leather  bottomed  chairs,  all  mahog- 
any, 4 plain  chairs,  4 looking  glasses,  a four  poster  bed,  two  bureaus,  a 
double  chest  of  drawers  all  mahogany,  six  bedsteads,  and  an  easy  chair.” 
I did  not  see  this  list  until  after  we  had  refurnished  the  house  and  was 
amused  to  see  that  he  included  also  two  pictures  of  the  King  and  Queen. 
Without  knowing,  we  had  replaced  these  and  even  added  one  of  the  cor- 
onation. 

Many  of  the  entries  in  his  diaries  are  of  no  particular  interest  today, 
and  not  a few  are  bitter.  “Some  of  our  pupies  in  town  are  coming  to  wait 
on  the  Judge,”  he  wrote  in  June,  1774,  and  in  September  again— “To- 
day I was  visited  by  about  thirty  Middleborough  Puppies,”  and  again, 
he  writes  of  “the  consummate  impudence”  to  which  he  has  been  sub- 
jected. I mention  this  now  in  closing  only  because  it  gives  me  a chance 
to  end  on  a happy  note,  a headline  from  the  front  page  of  the  Middlebor- 
ough Gazette  in  the  middle  of  November,  1947: 

THIS  TIME  THE  OLIVER  HOUSE  IS  NOT  BURNED 
Historical  Association  “Mob”  meets  with 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  Peter  Oliver. 

One  hundred  and  seventy  of  our  neighbors  came  here  that  night,  and  an 
entirely  unnecessary  note  of  thanks,  most  gratefully  received,  from  the 
Secretary  on  behalf  of  the  Society  ended:  “May  God  bless  this  house,  and 
all  who  dwell  there-in.” 

I can  appraise  this  good  sentiment  only  as  the  earned  result  of  the  lives 
of  those  who  were  here  during  most  of  the  life  of  the  house:  the  families 


1950]  Judge  Oliver  and  the  Oliver  House  305 

of  Sproat,  and  of  Weston,  and  of  Jones.  I only  hope  that  their  impress 
upon  the  spot,  with  that  of  the  Olivers  of  the  earlier  time,  and  of  us,  now, 
may  create  a benign  condition  wherein  it  may  be  hopefully  asked  for  the 
present  and  the  future,  that  God  bless  this  house  and  all  who  dwell  or 
come  into  it! 


Annual  Meeting 

November,  1950 

THE  Annual  Meeting  of  the  Society  was  held  at  the 
Algonquin  Club,  No.  217  Commonwealth  Avenue,  Bos- 
ton, on  Tuesday,  21  November  1950,  at  a quarter  after 
six  o’clock  in  the  evening,  the  President,  Augustus  Peabody 
Loring,  Jr.,  in  the  chair. 

With  the  consent  of  those  present,  the  reading  of  the  records 
of  the  last  Stated  Meeting  was  omitted. 

The  Treasurer  submitted  his  Annual  Report  as  follows: 


Report  of  the  Treasurer 

In  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  the  By-Laws,  the  Treasurer 
submits  his  Annual  Report  for  the  year  ending  14  November  1950. 


Statement  of  Assets  and  Funds,  14  November  1950 


ASSETS 

Cash: 

Income 

Loan  to  Principal 
Investments  at  Book  Value: 

Bonds  (Market  Value  $154,891.00) 

Stocks  (Market  Value  $172,293.25) 

Savings  Bank  Deposit 

Total  Assets 


FUNDS 

Funds 

Unexpended  Income 
Total  Funds 


$15^73-52 

13,764.85  $1,408.67 

$155,440.67 
102,582.1 8 

3,010.29  261,033.14 

$262,441.81 


$242,857.00 

19^84-81 

$262,441.81 


Income  Cash  Receipts  and  Disbursements 
Balance,  14  November  1949  $14,826.48 

RECEIPTS: 

Dividends 
Interest 


$7,806.05 

5,940.19 


» 950] 


Report  of  the  Treasurer 


Annual  Assessments 

From  Martha  Rebecca  Hunt  Fund 

Sales  of  Publications 

Total  Receipts  of  Income 


810.00 

434.00 
433-00 


3°7 


i$, 423-24 
$30,249.72 


DISBURSEMENTS: 

Publications 

New  England  Quarterly 
Editor’s  Salary 
Secretarial  Expense 
Annual  Dinner 

Notices  and  Expenses  of  Meetings 
Storage 

Auditing  Services 
General  Expense 

Postage,  Office  Supplies  and  Miscellaneous 
Joint  Dinner  with  M.  H.  S. 

Insurance 
Safe  Deposit  Box 

Interest  on  Sarah  Louisa  Edes  Fund  added  to  Prin- 
cipal 

Interest  on  Henry  H.  Edes  Memorial  Fund  added 
to  Principal 

Interest  on  Albert  Matthews  Fund  added  to  Prin- 
cipal 

Total  Disbursements  of  Income 
Balance  of  Income,  14  November  1950 


$4,840.90 

3,000.00 

1,500.00 

900.00 
593-92 
399-54 
300.72 

1 25.00 

H9-35 
1 1 1. 91 

87.00 
86.40 

24.00 

2,242.54 

491.48 

25344 


$1 5,076.20 
$15,173-52 


James  M.  Kunnewell 

T reasurer 


Report  of  the  Auditing  Committee 

The  undersigned,  a committee  appointed  to  examine  the  accounts  of  the 
Treasurer  for  the  year  ended  14  November  1950,  have  attended  to  their 
duties  by  employing  Messrs.  Stewart,  Watts  and  Bollong,  Public  Account- 
ants and  Auditors,  who  have  made  an  audit  of  the  accounts  and  examined 
the  securities  on  deposit  in  Box  91  in  the  New  England  Trust  Company. 

We  herewith  submit  their  report,  which  has  been  examined  and  ac- 
cepted by  the  Committee. 

Willard  G.  Cogswell 
Arthur  S.  Pier 

A uditing  C ommittee 


308  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [nov. 

The  Treasurer’s  Report  was  accepted  and  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Publication. 

On  behalf  of  the  committee  appointed  to  nominate  officers  for 
the  ensuing  year  the  following  list  was  presented ; and  a ballot 
having  been  taken,  these  gentlemen  were  unanimously  elected: 

President  Augustus  Peabody  Loring,  Jr. 

Vice-Presidents  Hon.  Robert  Walcott 
Samuel  Eliot  Morison 

Recording  Secretary  Robert  Earle  Moody 

Corresponding  Secretary  Zechariah  Chafee,  Jr. 

Treasurer  James  Melville  Hunnewell 

Registrar  Robert  Dickson  Weston 

Member  oj  the  Council  jor  Three  Years  Palfrey  Perkins 

The  Treasurer  moved  the  adoption  of  the  Suggested  By-Laws 
that  had  been  considered  at  the  Annual  Meeting  in  1949  and  had 
failed,  by  a fraction  of  one  vote,  to  receive  the  approval  of  three 
quarters  of  the  members  present  at  the  meeting.  On  this  occasion, 
forty-four  votes  being  cast  in  the  affirmative,  four  in  the  nega- 
tive, and  one  blank,  the  By-Laws  were  adopted  in  the  firm  print- 
ed in  the  Handbook  oj  the  Colonial  Society  oj  Massachusetts  1892- 
1952  (Boston,  1953). 

After  the  meeting  was  dissolved,  dinner  was  served.  The 
guests  of  the  Society  were  Mr.  John  Goodbody,  the  Reverend 
Duncan  Howlett,  Mr.  William  Caleb  Loring,  Mr.  David  Mc- 
Cord, Mr.  David  McKibbin  and  Mr.  Alex  Murphy.  The  Rev- 
erend Henry  Wilder  Foote  said  grace. 

After  dinner  Samuel  Eliot  Morison  read  the  Mayflower 
Compact,  and  the  Annual  Report  of  the  Council  was  read  by  Mr. 
Zechariah  Chafee,  Jr. 

Report  of  the  Council 

SINCE  the  last  Annual  Meeting  the  Society  has  had,  as  usual,  three 
Stated  Meetings;  in  December  and  February  at  the  Club  of  Odd  Vol- 
umes, and  in  April  at  the  house  of  Mr.  Augustus  Peabody  Loring,  Jr.  On 
28  December  the  Society  joined  with  the  Massachusetts  Historical  Soci- 
ety in  giving  a dinner  at  the  Club  of  Odd  Volumes  to  their  Corresponding 


1950]  Report  of  the  Council  309 

Members  who  were  attending  the  American  Historical  Association  meet- 
ing, and  on  6 June  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Peter  Oliver  invited  the  Society  to 
luncheon  in  Middleborough. 

The  Society  has  continued  its  support  of  the  New  England  Quarterly  as 
in  past  years.  Volume  35  of  our  Publications , containing  Transactions  for 
the  years  1942  to  1946  is  now  in  page  proofs  and  will  be  printed  as  soon 
as  the  index  is  completed.  Mr.  Frederick  S.  Allis,  Jr.,  who  has  been  edit- 
ing two  volumes  of  Collections  on  the  Maine  land  grants  has  nearly  fin- 
ished his  work,  and  it  is  hoped  that  these  may  go  to  press  in  1951. 

The  Society  has  elected  the  following  members: 

Resident: 

Francis  Whiting  Hatch 
Lucius  James  Knowles 

C orresfond  big : 

Wendell  Stan  wood  Hadlock 
William  Greenough  Wendell 
John  Marshall  Phillips 

During  the  past  year  the  Society  has  lost  from  its  rolls  by  death  seven 
members: 

Waldron  Phoenix  Belknap,  Jr.,  Resident,  1948,  died  14  Decem- 
ber 1 949.  He  was  a member  of  this  Society  for  only  one  year,  but  his  name 
will  be  long  remembered  among  scholars.  A graduate  of  Harvard  College 
in  1920  and  a Master  of  Architecture,  he  munificently  repaid  his  indebt- 
edness to  his  Alma  Mater.  The  untimely  illness  which  cut  short  his  fruit- 
ful life  did  not  end  his  devotion  to  his  close  friends  and  to  art  and  literature. 
He  will  be  to  Harvard  what  the  Earl  of  Clarendon  is  to  Oxford,  an  un- 
ceasing giver  of  beautiful  books  for  all  men  to  read. 

George  Richards  Minot,  Resident,  1929,  died  25  February  1950. 
His  service  to  mankind  was  prolonged  many  years  by  the  doctors  who  pro- 
duced insulin,  and  in  return  he  lengthened  countless  useful  lives  by  dis- 
covering in  1926  the  curative  effect  of  liver  on  pernicious  anaemia.  Few 
were  the  learned  societies  which  did  not  honor  themselves  by  putting  his 
name  on  their  rolls  and  bestowing  on  him  their  supreme  awards.  Prob- 
ably no  other  member  of  the  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  will  ever 
receive  the  Nobel  Prize  in  Medicine.  Yet  one  would  never  guess  all  this 
while  talking  with  him  delightfully.  Despite  his  great  knowledge  of  organs 
and  diseases,  they  were  never  isolated  entities.  Whether  it  was  a sick  wom- 
an seeking  help  or  an  eager  young  research  worker  to  be  put  in  the  right 


3 i o The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [nov. 

laboratory  or  a colonial  doctor  brought  to  life  in  a paper  for  this  Society, 
the  individual  human  being  was  what  counted  with  George  Minot. 

Charles  Knowles  Bolton,  died  19  May  1950  in  his  eighty-third 
year.  He  was  the  oldest  member  of  the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society 
and  joined  our  Society  in  1898,  before  any  member  now  living.  Resign- 
ing in  1912  after  contributing  many  papers,  he  again  became  a Resident 
Member  in  1926.  As  Librarian  of  the  Boston  Athenreum  for  thirty-five 
years,  he  exceeded  the  service  of  all  his  predecessors.  In  1933,  at  the  age 
of  sixty-six  he  retired  but  did  not  cease  work.  “I  very  much  enjoy  grow- 
ing older.”  For  the  Works  Progress  Administration,  he  supervised  the 
survey  of  early  American  portraits  in  New  England  and  New  York.  He 
wrote  many  books  and  a manuscript  check-list  of  false  and  doubtful  por- 
traits in  public  institutions. 

Clarence  Eldon  Walton,  Resident,  1934,  Corresponding,  1946, 
died  25  May  1950,  aged  fifty-two.  Born  in  Madison,  Maine,  and  a 
graduate  of  Bates  College,  he  soon  became  a librarian  at  Stanford  Univer- 
sity and  then  at  New  York  University.  In  1930  he  came  to  Harvard  and 
served  sixteen  years  as  Assistant  Librarian,  notably  in  the  Order  Depart- 
ment. His  New  York  experience  in  collecting  and  arranging  the  complex 
output  of  the  League  of  Nations  broadened  into  a mastery  of  the  mechani- 
cal problems  of  documents.  He  drew  up  and  applied  a classification  for  the 
University  Archives  and  taught  a course  on  Historical  Archives,  Principles 
and  Practice,  one  of  the  first  of  the  kind  in  the  country.  For  the  Tercen- 
tenary, he  prepared  the  Library’s  exhibit,  which  was  recorded  in  his  His- 
torical Prospect  oj  Harvard  College,  1636— igg6.  During  World  War  II, 
he  was  active  in  civilian  defense.  In  1 946  he  went  to  the  War  Department 
and  afterwards  the  State  Department,  with  especial  responsibility  for  over- 
seas libraries,  distributing  material  over  fifty-six  countries  and  getting  the 
New  York  Times  by  air  to  remote  parts  of  China. 

Fred  Tarbell  Field,  Resident,  1934,  and  Vice-President  since 
1938,  died  22  July  1950.  A descendant  of  Roger  Williams,  who  came 
back  to  Massachusetts.  Born  in  Springfield,  Vermont,  he  went  to  Brown 
University,  which  he  later  served  devotedly  on  its  Board  of  Fellows.  After 
leaving  Harvard  Law  School  in  1903,  he  became  an  expert  on  tax  law,  in 
public  offices  till  1919  and  then  in  practice  in  Boston.  Ten  years  later  he 
was  raised  from  the  bar  to  the  Supreme  Judicial  Court,  which  is  rare  in 
Massachusetts,  and  in  1938  he  moved  to  the  Chief  Justice’s  chair,  which 
had  been  occupied  years  before  by  his  uncle.  A true  judge,  he  said,  “should 
be  a man  with  his  feet  on  the  ground  and  his  head  in  the  clouds.” 


1950]  Report  of  the  Council  31 1 

Harry  Andrews  Wright,  Resident,  1940,  died  20  October  1950, 
aged  seventy-eight.  He  was  a descendant  of  John  Alden  and  Priscilla 
Mullins  and  of  Miles  Standish,  too.  A lifelong  resident  of  Springfield,  his 
business  interests  shifted  from  insurance  to  corsets  to  the  development  and 
patenting  of  mechanical  devices.  His  great  interest  in  local  history  was 
shown  in  his  hul'uin  Deeds  of  Hampden  County , Early  Maps  of  the  Connecticut 
V alley y and  the  recent  editing  of  four  volumes  of  The  Story  of  Western  Mas- 
sachusetts. During  the  300th  anniversary  of  Springfield,  he  exploded  the 
city’s  traditions  by  insisting  that  William  Pynchon  and  his  band  of  pioneers 
sailed  up  the  Connecticut  in  sloops  instead  of  paddling  and  then  failed  to 
build  a cluster  of  log  cabins,  inasmuch  as  these  were  not  known  in  Ameri- 
ca until  the  Finns  brought  them  to  Delaware  in  1663. 

Charles  Eliot  Goodspeed,  Resident,  1926,  and  our  President  in 
1945—1946,  died  on  31  October  1950.  At  the  age  of  fourteen  he  went 
to  work.  What  college  could  have  taught  him  what  he  knew?  An  angler 
for  trout  and  rare  books,  a merchant  venturer  in  history,  ever  ready  to  give 
the  knowledge  in  his  mind  away  to  needy  scholars. 

Mr.  John  Marshall  Phillips,  Director  of  the  Yale  Uni- 
versity Art  Gallery,  addressed  the  Society  and  its  guests  upon 
the  subject:  “Food  and  Drink  in  the  Colonial  Period,57  illustrat- 
ing his  remarks  by  lantern  slides  of  colonial  silver. 


December  Meeting,  1950 

A STATED  Meeting  of  the  Society  was  held  at  the  Club  of 
Odd  Volumes,  No.  77  Mount  Vernon  Street,  Boston,  on 
- Thursday,  28  December  1950,  at  three  o’clock  in  the 
afternoon,  the  President,  Augustus  Peabody  Loring,  Jr.,  in 
the  chair. 

The  records  of  the  Annual  Meeting  in  November  were  read 
and  approved. 

Mr.  John  Phillips  Coolidge,  of  Cambridge,  Mr.  Bertram 
Kimball  Little,  of  Brookline,  Mr.  David  Britton  Little, 
of  Concord,  Mr.  David  Pingree  Wheatland,  of  Cambridge, 
and  Mr.  Stephen  Wheatland,  of  Brookline,  were  elected 
Resident  Members  and  Mr.  Bernhard  Knollenberg,  of 
Chester,  Connecticut,  was  elected  a Corresponding  Member  of 
the  Society. 

Mr.  Robert  Peabody  Bellows  read  a paper  entitled: 
“Whither  Away?  The  Search  for  the  Frame  of  the  First  King’s 
Chapel,”  in  which  he  made  an  ingenious  demonstration  by  argu- 
ments from  chronology,  structural  comparison  and  measurements 
that  the  frame  of  the  original  King’s  Chapel  in  Boston  might 
have  been  used  in  the  construction  of  St.  John’s  Church,  Lunen- 
burg, Nova  Scotia. 


February  Meeting,  1951 

A STATED  Meeting  of  the  Society  was  held  at  the  Club  of 
Odd  Volumes,  No.  77  Mount  Vernon  Street,  Boston,  on 
^ Thursday,  15  February  1951,  at  three  o’clock  in  the 
afternoon,  the  President,  Augustus  Peabody  Loring,  Jr.,  in 
the  chair. 

The  records  of  the  last  Stated  Meeting  were  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

The  Corresponding  Secretary  reported  the  receipt  of  letters 
from  Mr.  John  Phillips  Coolidge,  Mr.  Bertram  Kimball 
Little,  Mr.  David  Britton  Little,  Mr.  David  Pingree 
Wheatland  and  Mr.  Stephen  Wheatland  accepting  election 
to  Resident  Membership,  and  from  Mr.  Bernhard  Knollen- 
berg  accepting  election  to  Corresponding  Membership  in  the 
Society. 

The  President  reported  the  death  on  8 January  1951  of  Og- 
den Codman,  a Resident  Member;  that  on  5 February  1951 
of  Robert  Francis  Seybolt,  a Corresponding  Member,  and 
that  on  9 February  1951  of  Harold  Hitchings  Burbank,  a 
Resident  Member  of  the  Society. 

Mr.  Gordon  Thaxter  Banks,  of  Shirley,  Mr.  Buchanan 
Charles,  of  North  Andover,  Mr.  I.  Bernard  Cohen,  of  Cam- 
bridge, Mr.  Dennis  Aloysius  Dooley,  of  Boston,  Mr.  Wil- 
liam Henry  Harrison,  of  Harvard,  Mr.  David  Milton  Ken- 
dall McKibbin,  of  Boston,  Mr.  David  Thompson  Watson 
McCord,  of  Boston,  the  Reverend  Richard  Donald  Pierce, 
of  Boston,  and  Mr.  Vernon  Dale  Tate,  of  Hingham,  were 
elected  Resident  Members;  the  Reverend  Arthur  Adams,  of 
Hartford,  Connecticut,  was  elected  a Non-Resident  Member; 
Mr.  Marion  Vernon  Brewington,  of  Cambridge,  Maryland, 
was  elected  a Corresponding  Member;  and  Mr.  Julian  Parks 
Boyd,  of  Princeton,  New  Jersey,  and  Mr.  Douglas  Southall 
Freeman,  of  Richmond,  Virginia,  were  elected  Honorary  Mem- 
bers of  the  Society. 

Mr.  Wendell  Stanwood  Hadlock  read  a paper  entitled: 


314  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [feb. 

The  Islesford  Museum 


MANY  of  the  members  of  the  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts 
were  personally  acquainted  with  William  Otis  Sawtelle,  the 
founder  and  creator  of  the  Islesford  Historical  Museum,  Isles- 
ford, Maine,  and  his  writings.  Therefore  the  activities  and  plans  for  the 
eventual  development  of  the  Islesford  Historical  Museum  is  of  interest  to 
the  members  of  this  Society  and  other  students  doing  research  in  the  field 
of  colonial  history  relating  to  the  then  eastern  lands  of  Massachusetts, 
Acadia  and  Nova  Scotia. 

In  1948  the  Islesford  Historical  Museum  and  collection,  together  with 
1.3  acres  of  land,  was  added  to  Acadia  National  Park.  The  museum  build- 
ing, in  which  is  housed  the  entire  collection  of  manuscripts,  books  and 
early  colonial  materials  gathered  from  the  Cranberry  Isles  and  adjacent 
region,  consists  of  three  rooms  and  a central  hallway.  The  building,  erect- 
ed in  1927,  is  made  of  brick  and  granite,  with  slate  roof,  and  was  made 
possible  by  the  generous  contributions  of  Dr.  Sawtelle’s  friends. 

The  hallway  of  the  museum  building  has  a flagstone  floor  with  brick 
sidewalls  and  with  arching  doorways  leading  to  rooms  on  either  side.  The 
two  rooms  flanking  the  hallway  were  used  by  Dr.  Sawtelle  for  exhibition 
and  library  purposes.  At  the  extreme  end  of  the  central  hall,  but  at  a 
slight  elevation,  is  a rear  wing  which  houses  the  material  gathered  from 
the  early  settlers  and  inhabitants  of  the  Cranberry  Isles. 

For  a number  of  years  after  the  death  of  Dr.  Sawtelle  and  before  the 
property  was  acquired  by  the  National  Park  Service  little  or  no  care  was 
given  to  the  materials  within  the  museum,  and,  consequently,  the  damp- 
ness caused  deterioration  of  valuable  materials  and  manuscripts.  In  1949 
the  museum  was  open  to  the  general  public,  and  the  arrangement  of 
exhibits  followed  as  closely  as  possible  the  previous  pattern  as  set  by  Dr. 
Sawtelle. 

The  large  entrance  corridor  was  given  over  to  the  display  of  prints, 
paintings,  drawings  and  photographs  of  the  various  commercial  ships  ply- 
ing the  waters  of  the  Mount  Desert  Island  region. 

The  room  to  the  right  of  the  entrance  corridor  exhibits  prints,  photo- 
stats, maps  and  pictures  relating  to  the  early  colonial  history  of  Acadia, 
Nova  Scotia  and  Eastern  Massachusetts.  In  this  room  are  also  found 
prints  of  the  personages  who  played  an  important  part  in  the  history  of  the 
area  mentioned  above. 

The  left  of  the  entrance  corridor  is  the  library  which  contains  a valu- 
able collection  of  books  relating  to  this  region  as  well  as  other  prints  and 


1951]  The  Islesford  Museum  3 1 5 

photostatic  material  dealing  with  the  English  phase  of  Maine  history  and 
more  particularly  the  land  grants  in  Maine.  The  library  is  unique,  for  one 
of  its  size,  in  that  it  contains  the  working  tools  necessary  for  detailed  study 
of  tin's  phase  of  history  for  which  the  museum  was  intended.  Among  the 
books  may  be  found: 

The  Report  oj  the  Acadia  Commissioners,  1755;  John  Maurice  O’Brien, 
The  Powers  and  Duties  oj  the  T own  Officers  as  Coritained  in  the  Statutes  oj 
Maine  (Brunswick,  1822)  ; Colonel  Paul  Dudley  Sargent  (Privately  print- 
ed, 1920)  ; Pierre  de  Charlevoix,  Histoirc  et  description  generale  de  la  Nou- 
velle  France  (Paris,  1744)  and  J.  G.  Shea  translation;  Lahontan,  Voyages 
(2nd  ed.,  Amsterdam,  1705);  James  Sullivan,  History  oj  the  District  oj 
Maine  (Boston,  I.  Thomas,  1795),  one  copy  with  1 1 p.  Index  printed 
from  mss.  of  John  Wingate  Thornton;  Joseph  Williamson,  Bibliography 
oj  the  State  oj  Maine  (Portland,  1896),  an  annotated  copy;  Lorenzo 
Sabine,  Biographical  Sketches  oj  the  Loyalists  oj  the  American  Revolution  (Bos- 
ton, 1864)  ; Beamish  Murdock,  A History  oj  Nova  Scotia  or  Acadia  (Hali- 
fax, 1863);  Samuel  Purchas,  Hakluytus  Posthumous  or  Purchas  him  Pil- 
grimes  (Glasgow,  1905— 1907),  20  volumes;  Marc  Lescarbot,  Nova 
Francia , translated  by  H.  Biggar  (New  York,  1928). 

The  Cranberry  Isles  Room  at  the  end  of  the  entrance  corridor  dis- 
plays documents  relating  to  the  history  of  the  town  of  Cranberry  Isles 
and  tools  and  materials  used  by  the  early  settlers  of  the  islands.  One  sec- 
tion is  given  over  to  display  of  fishing  gear,  another  to  cooper’s  tools  used 
in  the  manufacture  of  barrels  and  hogsheads  of  the  fishing  industry,  and 
in  various  other  parts  of  the  room  may  be  found  household  utensils  of  a 
coastal  town  in  the  1800’s. 

As  the  museum  is  now  arranged  it  is  necessary  that  each  visitor  or  group 
of  visitors  to  the  museum  be  personally  guided  and  told  the  story  of  the 
displays.  It  is  the  desire  of  the  National  Park  Service  to  modernize  the 
Islesford  Historical  Museum  so  that  it  will  conform  to  the  standards  of 
other  museums  within  the  park  service.  It  has  been  suggested  that  the 
museum  be  arranged  so  that  it  will  be  in  so  far  as  possible  self-explanatory 
and  present  a well-rounded  story  to  the  general  public.  The  main  entrance 
or  the  lobby  would  be  given  over  entirely  to  the  early  shipping  activities 
of  this  region  and  a special  exhibit  dealing  with  shipping.  The  room  to  the 
right  of  the  entrance  corridor  would  be  given  over  entirely  to  colonial 
history  and  early  United  States  history.  Such  displays  in  this  room  would 
consist  of: 

1.  Basque  fishing  activities  in  colonial  Maine. 


[feb. 


3 1 6 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts 


2.  Early  discoveries  and  explorations. 

3.  Historic  map  of  Mount  Desert  Region. 

4.  De  Monts’  colony  on  St.  Croix  Island,  1604—1605. 

5.  French  activity  in  early  colonial  period. 

6.  Jesuit  Mission  at  St.  Sauveur,  Mount  Desert  Island,  1613. 

7.  English  activity  in  this  region. 

8.  Popham  colony. 

9.  Land  grants  on  Mount  Desert  Island. 

10.  Early  land  grants  of  Maine. 


The  room  directly  across  from  the  corridor  will  be  a library  room  with- 
out any  exhibits.  It  is  planned  that  this  room  shall  be  a combined  library- 
reading room  with  all  of  the  manuscripts,  historical  records  and  reference 
material  available  to  responsible  students.  It  is  hoped  that  all  information 
in  the  museum  will  be  cataloged  and  indexed. 

The  Island  room  at  the  end  of  the  corridor  will  be  devoted  entirely  to 
the  history  of  the  Cranberry  Isles  from  its  earliest  mention  in  historic  rec- 
ords down  to  the  present  time.  Special  exhibits  will  consist  of  the  follow- 
ing: 

1.  Early  kitchen,  the  fireplace  and  the  necessary  utensils  of  the  early 
1800’s. 

2.  History  of  the  Cranberry  Isles  supported  by  the  early  town  records. 

3.  Fishing  activities  and  fishing  gear  used. 

4.  Exhibit  of  the  activities  of  lobstering. 

5.  Shoemaking  with  cobbler’s  bench,  tools  and  wares. 

6.  The  cooper’s  trade.  The  tools  and  methods  employed  in  the  manu- 
facture of  hogsheads  and  barrels  for  fishing  industry. 

7.  Exhibits  of  John  Gilley  and  Sam  Hadlock. 

8.  Relief  map  of  Little  Cranberry  Island  and  the  waterfront  activities 
of  100  years  ago.1 


Mr.  Samuel  Eliot  Morison  described  the  new  text  of  the 
Bradford  history  that  he  was  then  preparing.  This  was  pub- 
lished in  1952  by  Alfred  A.  Knopf. 


1 The  suggested  possible  exhibits  to  be  installed  in  the  Islesford  Museum  was  taken 
from  “Report  of  Visit  to  Islesford  Museum,  Little  Cranberry  Island,  Acadia  Na- 
tional Park,”  and  submitted  to  the  Regional  Director  by  J.  Paul  Hudson,  Museum 
Administrator. 


April  Meeting,  1951 

A STATED  Meeting  of  the  Society  was  held,  at  the  invita- 
tion of  Mr.  Augustus  Peabody  Loring,  Jr.,  at  No.  2 
^ Gloucester  Street,  Boston,  on  Thursday,  26  April  1951, 
at  a quarter  before  nine  o’clock.  Due  to  the  illness  of  the  Presi- 
dent, the  Vice-President,  the  Hon.  Robert  Walcott,  took  the 
chair. 

The  records  of  the  last  Stated  Meeting  were  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

The  Vice-President  reported  the  death  on  2 March  1951  of 
George  Gregerson  Wolkins,  a Resident  Member,  and  that  on 
5 April  1951  of  William  Gwinn  Mather,  a Corresponding 
Member. 

The  Corresponding  Secretary  reported  the  receipt  of  letters 
from  Mr.  Gordon  Thaxter  Banks,  Mr.  Buchanan  Charles, 
Mr.  I.  Bernard  Cohen,  Mr.  Dennis  Aloysius  Dooley,  Mr. 
William  Henry  Harrison,  Mr.  David  Milton  Kendall 
McKibbin,  Mr.  David  Thompson  Watson  McCord,  the 
Reverend  Richard  Donald  Pierce  and  Mr.  Vernon  Dale 
Tate  accepting  election  to  Resident  Membership;  from  the 
Reverend  Arthur  Adams  accepting  election  to  Non-Resident 
Membership;  from  Mr.  Marion  Vernon  Brewington  accept- 
ing election  to  Corresponding  Membership,  and  from  Mr. 
Julian  Parks  Boyd  and  Mr.  Douglas  Southall  Freeman 
accepting  election  to  Honorary  Membership. 

Mr.  Stephen  Thomas  Riley,  of  Boston,  the  Reverend 
Robert  Dale  Richardson,  of  Concord,  Mr.  Douglas  Swaim 
Byers,  of  Andover,  Mr.  Earle  Williams  Newton,  of  Stur- 
bridge,  were  elected  Resident  Members,  and  Mr.  Henry  Bes- 
ton,  of  Nobleboro,  Maine,  was  elected  a Corresponding  Mem- 
ber of  the  Society. 

The  Reverend  Joseph  Raphael  Frese,  S.J.,  then  read  the 
following  paper: 


3 1 8 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 


Early  Parliamentary  Legislation  on 
Writs  ot  Assistance 

“An  Act  to  'prevent  Fr ancles  and  Concealments  oj 
His  NLajestyes  Customes  and  Subsidyes)y 

12  Car.  II  c.  19 

1660 

NOTHING  occurs  more  constantly  throughout  the  whole  con- 
troversy over  the  writs  of  assistance  than  the  question  of  their 
legality.  Whether  it  was  a lawyer  arguing  their  issuance  or  a 
merchant  defying  their  use  or  simply  the  court  wondering  over  their 
validity,  the  constant  thought  and  thread  throughout  is  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  laws  of  Parliament  and  their  import  to  the  American  scene.  In 
fact,  the  very  importance  of  the  fight  over  the  writs  of  assistance  lies  in 
this:  that  it  was  not  a petty  struggle  over  temporary  smuggling  or  an 
evasion  of  the  law;  it  was  a questioning  of  the  law  itself.  It  might  be  wise, 
then,  at  least  to  look  at  the  laws  which  were  advanced  as  a foundation  for 
the  writs  of  assistance. 

There  are  three  laws  commonly  mentioned  in  the  early  controversy:1 
“An  Act  to  prevent  Fraudes  and  Concealments  of  His  Majestyes  Cus- 
tomes and  Subsidyes”;2  “An  Act  for  preventing  Frauds  and  regulating 
Abuses  in  his  Majesties  Customes”;3  and  finally,  “An  Act  for  preventing 
Frauds  and  regulating  Abuses  in  the  Plantation  Trade.”4 

It  is  extremely  difficult  to  get  behind  the  scenes  of  legislation  passed 


1 As  far  as  can  be  determined  these  were  the  only  three  acts  dealing  with  the  writs  of 
assistance.  The  discussion  of  “An  Act  to  prevent  Fraudes  and  Concealments”  will 
bring  out  how  little  power  the  customs  officials  really  had.  The  only  previous  act 
relating  to  the  problem  was  28  Hen.  VI.  c.  5 which  granted  a writ  of  trespass  to 
merchants  who  were  “aggrieved”  by  the  extortions  of  customs  officials  by  seizures 
and  arrests.  They  were  empowered  to  recover  40  pounds.  Statutes  of  the  Realm 
([London],  1810-1822),  II.  356—357.  Cf.  11  Hen.  VI  c.  16,  ibid.,  II.  2883  also 
“An  Acte  lymiting  the  tymes  for  laying  on  Lande  Marchandise  from  beyonde  the 
Seas,  and  touching  Customes  for  Sweete  Wynes,”  1 Eliz.  c.  11,  ibid.,  iv.  372-374. 

Edward  Channing  in  A History  of  the  United  States  (New  York,  1905-1925), 
III.  3,  notes  that  in  1621  the  House  of  Commons  had  been  requested  “that  Writs  of 
Assistance  be  not  so  frequently  granted  to  Sheriffs.”  This  seems  to  be  a writ  of  pos- 
session, not  a writ  of  assistance  to  customs  officials.  Journals  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, 26  March  1621,  I.  574. 

2 12  Car.  II  c.  19,  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  V.  250. 

3 14  Car.  II  c.  1 1,  ibid.,  v.  393-397. 

4 7 & 8 Gul.  Ill  c.  22,  ibid.,  vii.  103-107. 


1951]  Legislation  on  Writs  of  Assistance  3 1 9 

even  in  modern  times.  It  is  just  about  impossible  when  we  turn  to  that 
hopeful  English  spring  of  1660  when  Charles  II  was  invited  back  to  his 
father’s  throne.  The  Journals  of  the  House  oj  Commons  and  the  Journals  oj 
the  House  oj  Lords  arc  as  bare  as  the  Hubbard  cupboard.  Debates  and  com- 
mittee reports  are  scattered  and  unsatisfying.5 6  Nor  are  the  other  collected 
speeches  of  much  additional  help.  But  from  the  aggregate  we  can  gather 
some  dates  and  a few  hints  on  the  “Act  to  prevent  Fraudes  and  Conceal- 
ments of  His  Majestyes  Customes  and  Subsidyes.”8 

The  new  English  Parliament  opened  its  sessions  on  25  April  1660. 
With  a nation  alternating  between  new  hope  and  old  fear  and  in  the 
throes  of  the  political  turmoil  the  tottering  Commonwealth  had  left  it, 
there  were  obviously  many  points  besides  revenue  clamoring  for  immedi- 
ate settlement:  the  state  of  the  nation,  amnesty  and  an  act  of  oblivion,  the 
very  power  of  Parliament  itself.  But  all  nations  and  kings,  particularly 
new  ones,  are  natively  concerned  with  revenue  and  it  was  not  long  be- 
fore the  Parliament  of  1660  began  its  earnest  discussion  of  ways  and  means 
of  income.7  There  were  poll  assessments  and  loans,  excise  and  customs, 
temporary  measures  and  long-range  planning.  There  were  laws  of  poli- 
cy, as  the  “Act  for  the  Encourageing  and  increasing  of  Shipping  and 
Navigation”;8  and  laws  of  very  practical  practice,  as  the  “Act  for  the 
speedy  Provision  of  Money  for  disbanding  and  paying  off  the  forces  of 
this  kingdome  both  by  Land  and  Sea.”9  Of  all  this  we  are  immediately 
concerned  with  the  legislation  on  the  customs  service,  for  it  was  in  a very 
practical  act  on  the  collection  of  the  customs  revenue  that  mention  was 
first  made  of  a search  warrant  for  customs  officials,1  which  was  to  be  the 
basis  of  the  whole  writs  of  assistance  controversy. 


5 V.,  e.g.,  The  History  and  Proceedings  of  the  House  of  Commons  from  the  Restora- 
tion to  the  Present  Time  (London,  1742-1744),  I;  The  History  and  Proceedings  of 
the  House  of  Lords  from  the  Restoration  in  1660  to  the  Present  Time  (London, 
1742—1743),  1}  The  Parliamentary  History  of  England  from  the  Earliest  Period 
to  the  Year  1803  (London,  1806-1820),  IV;  The  Parlia?nentary  or  Constitutional 
History  of  England  from  the  Earliest  Times  to  the  Restoration  of  King  Charles  II 
(London,  1762-1763),  xxii,  xxiii;  cf.  Leo  Francis  Stock  (ed.),  Proceedings  and 
Debates  of  the  British  Parliaments  Respecting  North  America  (Washington,  D.  C., 

1924-  )>l- 

6 12  Car.  II  c.  19,  Statutes  of  the  Realmy  V.  250,  which  will  form  the  basis  of  the 
discussion  in  this  section. 

7 Cf.  David  Ogg,  England  in  the  Reign  of  Charles  II  (Oxford,  1934),  1.  1 55—159. 

8 12  Car.  II  c.  18,  Statutes  of  the  Realmy  V.  246-250. 

9 12  Car.  II  c.  9,  ibid.y  v.  207-225. 

1 Vide  supra , p.  2,  footnote  1.  For  a warrant  of  seizure  with  power  to  overcome  re- 
sistance see  Journals  of  the  House  of  Commonsy  16  May  1660,  vm.  27. 


320  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

It  is  possible  that  the  idea  of  a search  warrant  for  customs  officers  came 
from  the  surveyor  general  of  the  customs  himself.  At  least  we  know  he 
presented  a petition  to  the  House  of  Lords  which  was  read  and  referred 
to  the  committee  of  petitions  on  18  May  1660. 2 His  petition  to  the  House 
of  Commons  was  referred,  on  28  May,  to  a committee  set  up  to  “prepare 
a Bill  or  Bills  for  Excise  and  Customs,  in  such  a Way  as  may  be  most  for 
Advancing  of  Trade,  and  best  Advantage  of  the  Publick.  . . .”3  This  in- 
fluence of  the  surveyor  general,  of  course,  is  only  a surmise  for  there  was 
another  petition — one  from  the  “Farmers  of  the  Customs  and  Excise  in 
Ireland ” — which  was  also  referred  to  the  Commons  committee.4  Besides, 
the  committee  was  to  “have  Power  to  send  for  Persons  and  Papers.  . . .” 
and  with  so  many  men  on  the  committee  interested  in  trade,  the  idea  of 
a search  warrant  might  have  occurred  to  any  of  them.5 

Throughout  June  and  July  the  customs  and  revenue  naturally  came  in 
for  a good  deal  of  discussion  in  committee  and  on  the  floor  of  the  House  of 
Commons.6  By  the  end  of  June,  the  committee  on  excise  and  customs 
had  been  granted  permission  to  hold  their  own  sessions  on  Monday,  Wed- 
nesday, and  Friday  even  though  the  Commons  resolved  itself  into  a grand 
committee  to  consider  the  “Act  takeing  away  the  Court  of  Wards  and 
Liveries.”7  But  all  this  discussion  on  revenue  seems  to  have  been  a matter 
of  routine:  granting  a subsidy  of  tonnage  and  poundage8  and  setting  up 
the  “Rates  of  Merchandize.”9  Even  by  the  end  of  July  there  seems  to 

2 Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords,  18  May  1660,  xi.  33. 

3 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons , 28  May  1660,  vm.  48. 

4 Ibid. 

5 The  Commons  committee  was  listed  as:  “Col.  Birch , Mr.  Pryn,  Mr.  Annesley , Mr. 
Finch , Mr.  Gott , Mr.  Weston,  Mr.  Knightly , Sir  Wm.  Doyley , Mr.  Earneley , Sir 
Auth.  Irby , Mr.  Bainton , Mr.  Powell , Sir  John  Potts , Mr.  Francis  Gerrard , Mr. 
Clapham , Sir  Tho.  Belhouse , Col.  White,  Col.  Jones,  Col.  King , Mr.  Jolliffe,  Mr. 
Foley , Mr.  Swale,  Col.  Bowyer,  Mr.  Ellison,  Mr.  Rich,  Mr.  Fowell , Lord  Aurigier, 
Mr.  Smyth,  Alderman  Fredrick,  Sir  John  Pelham,  Sir  Richard  Temple,  Mr.  An- 
drews, or  any  Three  of  them.  . . .”  Ibid. 

6 V.,  e.g.,  Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons,  23  May  1660,  vm.  44;  30  May,  p. 
49 ; 1 June,  p.  52  } 8 June,  p.  59  ; 12  June,  p.  62  5 19  June,  p.  68  5 20  June,  p.  69-705 
22  June,  p.  72;  23  June,  p.  73  5 etc.  passim  to  25  July,  p.  102.  V.e.,  subsequent  cita- 
tions. 

7 The  full  title  was:  “An  Act  takeing  away  the  Court  of  Wards  and  Liveries  and  Ten- 
ures in  Capite  and  by  Knights  Service  and  Purveyance,  and  for  setling  a Revenue 
upon  his  Majesty  in  Lieu  thereof.”  12  Car.  II  c.  24,  Statutes  of  the  Realm , V.  259— 
2 66. 

8 “A  Subsidy  granted  to  the  King  of  Tonnage  and  Poundage  and  other  summes  of 
Money  payable  upon  Merchandize  Exported  and  Imported.”  12  Car.  II  c.  4,  ibid., 
V.  181—183. 

9 “The  Rates  of  Merchandizes,”  ibid.,  V.  184-203. 


1951]  Legislation  on  Writs  of  Assistance  3 2 1 

have  been  no  discussion  of  search  warrants.  Colonel  Birch,  chairman  of 
the  committee  on  customs  and  excise,  reported  “certain  Order,  Directions, 
and  Allowances,  for  the  Advancement  of  Trade,  and  Encouragement 
of  the  Merchant;  for  regulating  as  well  of  the  Merchants  in  making  due 
Entrie  and  just  Payments  of  their  Customs,  as  of  the  Officers  in  all  the 
Ports  of  this  Kingdom,  in  the  faithful  discharge  of  their  Duty.  . . ,”1  But 
these  were  general  rules  for  the  customs  service  and  contained  nothing 
about  warrants  for  search.2  As  a matter  of  fact  there  is  only  one  mention 
of  search  at  all: 

XXII.  The  under  Searcher  or  other  Officers  of  Gravesend,  having  power  to 
visite  and  search  any  Ship  outward  bound,  shall  not  wthout  just  & reasonable 
cause  deteyne  any  such  ship  under  color  of  searching  the  goods  therein  laden 
above  three  tides  after  her  arrivall  at  Gravesend  under  paine  of  losse  of  their 
officee  & rendring  damage  to  the  Merc1  & Owner  of  the  Ship  And  the  Searcher 
or  other  Officer  of  the  Custome  House  in  any  of  the  out  ports  having  power  to 
search  & visite  any  ship  outward  bound,  shall  not  wthout  just  & reasonable  cause 
deteyne  any  such  ship  undr  Color  of  Searching  the  goods  therein  laden  above 
one  tyde  after  the  sd  Ship  is  fully  laden  & ready  to  set  saile,  under  paine  of  losse 
of  the  office  of  such  offender  & rendring  damage  to  the  Merchant  & Owner  of  ye 
ship.3 

But  this  was  just  regular  customs  service  and  the  power  of  search  was 
hardly  extensive.  It  is  certainly  not  what  caused  the  controversy  over  the 
writs  of  assistance. 

The  “Act  to  prevent  Fraudes  and  Concealments”  with  its  search  war- 
rant may  have  had  a more  immediate  occasion.  On  4 August  the  Com- 
mons were  informed  that  some  customable  goods  had  been  smuggled  by  a 
creek  near  Bow  and  “lodged  at  a Merchant’s  House  there.  . . .”  The 
sergeant  at  arms  was  ordered  to  seize  the  goods  and  summon  the  merchant 
to  attend  a committee  of  the  House  at  two  o’clock  in  the  afternoon.  The 
committee,  in  turn,  was  ordered  to  examine  the  matter  and  report  the 
facts  to  the  House  of  Commons.4  This  report  may  have  been  lost  in  the 
press  of  business;  but  it  seems  to  be  connected  with  the  incident  reported 
one  month  later. 

1 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons , 26  July  1660,  vm.  103. 

2 “Certain  Rules  Orders  Direcons  & Allowances  for  the  Advancement  of  Trade  and 
incouragemt  of  the  Merchant,  as  also  for  the  Regulating  as  well  of  ye  Merchants  in 
making  due  Entryes  & just  payment  of  theire  Customes,  as  of  the  Officrs  in  all  the 
Ports  of  this  Kingdom  in  the  faithfull  discharge  of  theire  dutie,”  Statutes  of  the 
Realm , V.  203—205. 

3 Ibid.,  p.  205. 

4 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons,  4 August  1660,  vm.  in. 


322  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

On  Thursday,  6 September,  the  House  of  Commons  was  informed 
“that  great  Quantities  of  Spanish  Tobacco,  lately  imported,  have  been 
landed,  and  secretly  conveyed  away  by  several  persons,  without  due  En- 
try, or  paying  of  Custom  or  Excise;  to  the  Defrauding  of  his  Majesty, 
and  Prejudice  of  the  Law.  . . .”  It  was  proposed  that  the  sergeant  at  arms 
of  the  House  by  himself  or  his  deputies  “do  forthwith  search  for,  seize, 
inventory,  and  secure,  the  said  Tobaccoes,  wherever  they  shall  be  found. 

. . .”  It  was  a large  order  for  an  officer  of  a legislative  chamber  and  hardly 
seems  in  keeping  with  his  official  character.  For  this  or  other  reasons  the 
Commons  did  not  like  the  resolution  either,  and  voted  it  down  99  to  61. 
It  was  resolved,  however,  “That  the  Commissioners  for  the  Excise  do 
forthwith  take  notice  of  this  Information;  and,  according  to  their  Duty, 
and  the  Powers  they  are  intrusted  with,  to  make  a Seizure  of  the  said 
Tobaccco.  . . .”5 

Had  the  tobacco  been  seized  as  envisioned  by  the  first  resolution,  the 
whole  incident  might  have  passed  over  and  the  customs  service  continued 
in  its  usual  way.  But  two  days  later,  on  Saturday,  we  have  a further  re- 
port: “A  Certificate  from  the  Commissioners  of  the  Excise  was  this  Day 
read,  touching  Spanish  Tobaccoes  in  the  House  of  Mr.  James  Haberthwaite 
of  London  Merchant,  who  keeps  his  Doors  against  the  Officers  employed 
by  the  said  Commissioners  to  search  for,  and  secure,  the  same.  . . .”6 

The  very  same  afternoon  a bill  was  introduced  “impowering  the  Com- 
missioners of  Excise  and  Customs  to  put  certain  Matters  in  Execution.” 
The  bill,  providing  search  warrants  for  customs  officials,  was  read  for 
the  first  and  second  time  and  sent  to  the  grand  committee.7  Two  days 
later,  Sir  Heneage  Finch  reported  from  the  grand  committee  certain 
amendments  which  were  twice  read  and  agreed  upon.8  In  the  afternoon 
“A  Bill  to  prevent  Frauds  and  Concealments  of  his  Majesty’s  Customs 
and  Subsidies,  was  this  Day  read  the  Third  time;  and,  upon  the  Ques- 
tion, passed.”  It  was  then  sent  up  to  the  House  of  Lords.9 

The  Lords,  too,  had  been  considering  various  measures  during  this 
long  summer  of  1660,1  but  the  important  bill  providing  search  warrants 

5 Ibid.y  6 September  1660,  vm.  154.  6 Ibid.y  8 September  1660,  VIII.  159. 

7 Ibid.  8 Ibid.y  10  September  1660,  vm.  161.  9 Ibid. 

1 V.,  e.g.y  Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords , 1 7 May  1 660,  XI.  31;  x 8 May,  pp.  3 2-3  3 ; 
19  May,  p.  34;  21  May,  p.  34;  24  May,  pp.  35,  39,  405  25  May,  pp.  40-415  28 

May,  p.  44}  29  May,  p.  45  5 21  June,  pp.  71-72;  16  July,  p.  92;  17  July,  p.  95; 
18  July,  p.  96;  19  July,  p.  97;  21  July,  p.  100;  23  July,  p.  101 ; 24  July,  p.  105; 
27  July,  p.  108 ; 28  July,  pp.  109-1 10;  30  July,  p.  no;  31  July,  p.  1 12 ; 7 August, 

p.  1 1 9 ; 13  August,  p.  126}  14  August,  p.  127;  18  August,  p.  133;  8 September,  p. 
164;  10  September,  p.  165. 


1951]  Legislation  on  Writs  of  Assistance  323 

for  customs  officials  did  not  come  to  hand  until  very  close  to  the  fall  recess. 
As  a matter  of  fact,  the  session  had  been  scheduled  to  end  on  8 September," 
but  the  Commons  had  requested  the  Lords  to  beg  the  King  for  a post- 
ponement, which  had  been  granted.8  There  was  little  time  and  apparent- 
ly as  little  disposition  in  the  House  of  Lords  to  debate  the  matter  of  search 
warrants.  On  Monday  afternoon,  io  September,  “An  Act  to  prevent 
Frauds  and  Concealments  of  His  Majesty’s  Customs  and  Subsidies”  was 
read  three  times  and  “The  Question  being  put,  ‘Whether  this  Bill  shall 
pass  as  a Law?  ’ It  was  Resolved  in  the  Affirmative.”4 

On  Thursday  of  that  same  week,  the  King  came  down  to  the  House 
of  Peers,  sent  the  gentleman  usher  of  the  black  rod  to  give  notice  to  the 
House  of  Commons,  who  came  up  bringing  with  them  three  bills.  After 
a short  address  their  speaker  presented  them  to  the  King  for  his  assent. 
One  of  them  was  the  “Act  to  prevent  Fraudes  and  Concealments  of  His 
Majestyes  Customes  and  Subsidyes.” 

“Then  His  Majesty  gave  Command  for  the  passing  of  these  Bills  fol- 
lowing; the  Clerk  of  the  Crown  reading  the  Titles,  and  the  Clerk  of  the 
Parliaments  pronouncing  the  Royal  Assent.  . . . ‘Le  Roy  le  veult.’  ”6 
The  same  day  Parliament  adjourned.6 

Whether  a public  bill  would  have  been  passed  to  remedy  a specific  in- 
stance without  previous  discussion  or  request  by  the  customs  officials  (such 
as  the  petition  of  the  surveyor  general)  may  well  be  questioned.  But  the 
“Act  to  prevent  Fraudes  and  Concealments”  certainly  reeks  of  Spanish 
tobaccoes  and  James  Haberthwaite  holding  his  doors  against  the  officers. 

The  act  is  so  important  to  subsequent  discussion  that  it  should  be  quoted 
in  full. 

Be  it  Enacted  by  the  Kings  most  Excellent  Majesty  by  and  with  the  advice 
and  consent  of  the  Lords  and  Commons  in  this  present  Parliament  assembled 
That  if  any  person  or  persons  at  any  time  after  the  first  day  of  September  One 
thousand  six  hundred  and  sixty  shall  cause  any  Goods  for  which  Custome  Subsidy 
or  other  dutyes  are  due  or  payable  by  vertue  of  the  Act  passed  this  Parliament 
Entituled  (A  Subsidy  granted  to  the  King  of  Tonnage  and  Poundage  and  other 
Summes  of  money  payable  upon  Merchandize  exported  and  imported)  to  be 
landed  or  conveyed  away  without  due  entry  thereof  first  made,  and  the  Cus- 
tomer or  Collector  or  his  Deputy  agreed  with,  That  then  and  in  such  case  upon 

2 Ibid.,  31  August  1660,  xi.  150. 

3 Ibid.,  8,  9 September  1660,  XI.  164. 

4 Ibid.,  10  September  1660,  XI.  166. 

5 Ibid.,  13  September  1660,  XI . 171. 

6 Ibid.,  p.  176. 


324  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

Oath  thereof  made  before  the  Lord  Treasurer  or  any  of  the  Barons  of  the  Ex- 
chequer or  cheife  Magistrate  of  the  Port  or  Place  where  the  offence  shall  be 
committed,  or  the  place  next  adjoyning  therunto,  it  shall  be  lawfull  to  and  for 
the  Lord  Treasurer  or  any  of  the  Barons  aforesaid  or  cheife  Magistrate  of  the 
Port  or  Place  where  the  offence  shall  be  committed  or  the  Place  next  adjoyning 
thereunto  to  issue  out  a Warrant  to  any  person  or  persons  thereby  enableing  him 
or  them  with  the  assistance  of  a Sheriffe  Justice  of  Peace  or  Constable  to  enter 
into  any  House  in  the  day  time  where  such  Goods  are  suspected  to  be  concealed, 
and  in  case  of  resistance  to  breake  open  such  Houses,  and  to  seize  and  secure  the 
same  goods  soe  concealed,  And  all  Officers  and  Ministers  of  Justice  are  hereby 
required  to  be  aiding  and  assisting  thereunto. 

Provided  alwayes  That  noe  House  shall  be  entred  by  vertue  of  this  Act  un- 
lesse  it  be  within  the  space  of  one  moneth  after  the  offence  supposed  to  be  com- 
mited. 

Provided  alsoe  That  this  Act  shall  continue  in  Force  until  the  end  of  the  first 
Session  of  the  next  Parliament  and  noe  longer. 

Provided  alsoe  That  if  the  Information  whereupon  any  House  shall  come  to 
be  searched  shall  prove  to  be  false,  that  then  and  in  such  case  the  party  injured 
shall  recover  his  full  damages  and  costs  against  the  Informer  by  Action  of  Tres- 
passe  to  bee  therefore  brought  against  such  Informer.7 

There  are  several  things  to  be  noted  about  this  act.  In  the  first  place 
the  warrant  was  to  be  issued  only  upon  oath  that  customable  goods  had 
been  landed  without  payment.  And  if  the  information  was  false  then  the 
party  injured  was  to  recover  full  damages  against  the  informer.  Besides, 
the  search  had  to  be  made  within  one  month  after  the  offense  was  com- 
mitted (which  may  have  been  one  reason  for  rushing  the  bill  through 
Parliament).  Furthermore,  the  warrant  was  good  only  in  the  day  time 
and  only  with  the  assistance  of  a local  official — a sheriff,  justice  of  the 
peace,  or  constable.  But  the  warrant  could  be  issued  to  anyone  and  in  case 
of  resistance  gave  authority  to  break  into  suspected  houses. 

Although  originally  in  force  only  until  the  next  session  of  Parliament, 
the  act  was  subsequently  re-enacted  and  made  permanent.8 

7 12  Car.  II  c.  19,  Statutes  of  the  Realm , V.  250. 

8 “An  Act  for  confirming  Publique  Acts,”  13  Car.  II  c.  7,  Statutes  of  the  Realm , v. 
309—3105  “An  Act  for  setleing  the  Revenue  on  His  Majestie  for  His  Life  which 
was  setled  on  His  late  Majestie  for  His  Life,”  1 Jac.  II  c.  1,  ibid.,  vi.  1 5 “An  Act 
for  making  good  Deficiencies  & for  preserving  the  Publick  Credit,”  1 Ann.  c.  7, 
ibid.,  viii.  40-485  “An  Act  for  reviving  continuing  and  appropriating  certain  Du- 
ties upon  several  Commodities  to  be  exported  and  certain  Duties  upon  Coals  to  be 
waterborn  and  carried  coastwise  and  for  granting  further  Duties  upon  Candles  for 
Thirty  two  Years  to  raise  Fifteen  hundred  thousand  Pounds  by  Way  of  a Lottery  for 
the  Service  of  the  Year  One  thousand  seven  hundred  and  eleven  and  for  suppressing 
such  unlawful  Lotteries  and  such  Insurance  Offices  as  are  therein  mentioned,”  9 


1951]  Legislation  on  Writs  of  Assistance  325 

This  was  a search  warrant  indeed  but  it  was  all  very  specific  and  very 
limited.  It  may  have  satisfied  the  Commissioners  of  Customs  or  it  may 
have  prompted  them  to  make  another  move  to  enlarge  their  powers. 

Parliament  reassembled  on  6 November  1660.”  On  Monday,  the  nine- 
teenth of  the  same  month  “The  humble  Petition  of  Christopher  Metcalje, 
Surveyor  General  of  his  Majesty’s  Customs,  was  read”1  in  the  House  of 
Commons.  This  time  we  have  no  record  of  a similar  petition  to  the  House 
of  Lords.  Perhaps  the  surveyor  general  had  learned  a good  deal  of  lobby- 
ing procedure  since  the  first  session. 

It  seems  that  some  goods  which  were  detained  for  want  of  customs  pay- 
ment had  been  forcibly  rescued  and  the  customs  officers  resisted  “in  do- 
ing their  Duties.”2  What  remedy  the  petition  was  requesting  we  are  not 
told;  but  it  was  referred  to  a committee  who  were  ordered  to  send  for  all 
the  people  concerned  in  the  case  and  were  told  to  examine  the  matter  of 
fact  and  to  report  to  the  House.  Sir  George  Downing,  who  was  long 
prominent  in  mercantile  affairs  and  is  credited  with  furthering  the  Navi- 
gation Act  of  1 660, 3 was  given  special  care  of  the  business.4 

On  Saturday,  Sir  George  reported  from  the  committee  the  state  of  fact 
but  we  are  not  given  too  clear  a picture  of  what  actually  happened.  It 
seems  that  some  “Persons,  called  Smugglers,  in  conveying  away  secretly 
several  Goods”5  had  given  the  customs  officials  a rather  rough  time  of  it. 
At  all  events,  the  House  of  Commons  seemed  to  be  quite  moved  by  the  ac- 
count and  took  the  action  of  several  resolutions. 


Ann.  c.  6,  ibid.,  ix.  366— 3845  “An  Act  for  redeeming  the  Duties  and  Revenues  which 
were  settled  to  pay  off  Principal  and  Interest  on  the  Orders  made  forth  on  four  Lot- 
tery-Acts passed  in  the  ninth  and  tenth  years  of  her  late  Majesty’s  Reign;  and  for 
redeeming  certain  Annuities  payable  on  Orders  out  of  the  Hereditary  Excise,  ac- 
cording to  a former  Act  in  that  Behalf;  and  for  establishing  a General  yearly  Fund, 
not  only  for  the  future  Payment  of  Annuities  at  several  Rates,  to  be  payable  and 
transferrable  at  the  Bank  of  England , and  redeemable  by  Parliament,  but  also  to 
raise  Monies  for  such  Proprietors  of  the  said  Orders  as  shall  choose  to  be  paid  their 
Principal  and  Arrears  of  Interest  in  ready  Money;  and  for  making  good  such  other 
Deficiencies  and  Payments  as  in  this  Act  are  mentioned ; and  for  taking  off  the  Du- 
ties on  Linseed  imported,  and  British  Linen  exported,”  3 Geo.  I c.  7,  Statutes  at 
Large  (London,  1763),  v.  103— 1 19. 

9 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons , 6 November  1660,  vm.  175  ; Journals  of  the 
House  of  Lords , 6 November  1660,  xi.  176. 

1 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons , 19  November  1660,  vm.  186. 

2 Ibid.,  23  November  1660,  vm.  191. 

3 Lawrence  Averell  Harper,  The  English  Navigation  Laws  (New  York,  1949), 
5 7-58. 

4 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons,  19  November  1660,  vm.  186. 

5 Ibid.,  23  November  1660,  vm.  19 1. 


326  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

In  the  first  place  the  committee,  who  had  reported,  was  ordered  to 
prepare  suitable  remedies  “for  preventing  the  like  Inconveniences  for  the 
future.”  One  wonders  if  the  “Inconvenience”  was  the  lack  of  a general 
search  warrant.  If  the  customs  officials  had  to  go  through  the  process  out- 
lined in  the  “Act  to  prevent  Fraudes  and  Concealments,”  the  smugglers 
may  well  have  managed  to  keep  one  step  ahead  of  them.  The  committee 
was  also  urged  to  make  the  customs  revenue  more  certain  and  settled,  and 
finally,  to  consider  a bill  prepared  for  that  purpose  in  the  hands  of  Sir  Wm. 
Vincent. 

The  Commons  was  also  determined  to  punish  the  offenders.  His  Maj- 
esty’s attorneys  were  “desired  to  take  notice  of  this  Riot;  and  to  take  ef- 
fectual Order,  that  the  Rioters  be  proceeded  with  in  the  King’s  Bench, 
and  in  the  Court  of  Exchequer,  according  to  Law.”  Furthermore,  a dele- 
gation was  sent  to  the  chief  justice  of  the  King’s  Bench  to  give  him  an 
account  of  the  affair  and  to  request  his  “special  Care,  that  Justice  may  be 
done  upon  the  Offenders.”  The  lord  chief  baron  of  the  Exchequer  was 
also  to  be  informed  and  desired  “that  his  Majesty’s  Duties  for  Customs  be 
duly  answered,”  that  the  criminals  be  prosecuted  and  “that  the  Goods  in 
Question  be  not  restored.”6 

Just  what  the  committee  decided  about  the  bill  or  exactly  what  the  bill 
was  about,  we  do  not  know.  “A  bill  for  better  gathering  of  the  Customs” 
was  reported  on  7 December  among  the  bills  which  were  still  to  be  con- 
sidered.7 

But  the  session  was  on  its  last  legs.  Parliament  was  to  be  dissolved  on 
29  December  and  with  a couple  of  days  holiday  at  Christmas  there  was 
little  time  to  do  anything  but  the  essentials.  Even  as  it  was,  candles  had 
to  be  brought  in  for  some  evening  sessions.8  Of  course,  it  might  well  have 
been  that  the  Commons  were  not  interested  in  giving  any  more  power 
to  the  customs  officials.  The  bill  may  have  been  killed  in  committee.  But 
whether  it  was  time  or  disinclination,  the  bill  was  never  enacted.  The  cus- 
toms officials  had  gotten  all  the  assistance  they  could  for  the  present. 


6 Ibid. 

7 Ibid.,  7 December  1660,  vm.  201. 

8 Ibid.,  21,  22  December  1660,  vm.  222,  225. 


1951]  Legislation  on  Writs  of  Assistance  327 

“An  Act  for  preventing  Frauds  and  regulating 
A buses  in  his  Majesties  C us  tomes” 

14  Car.  II  c.  1 1 
1662 

While  the  legislation  on  search  warrants  enacted  by  the  first  Parlia- 
ment of  Charles  II  is  fairly  clear,  that  of  his  second  Parliament  is  a little 
more  confusing.  Perhaps  it  is  because  this  Parliament  was  much  more  to 
the  King’s  liking  and  more  responsive  to  his  wishes  and  hence  more  vague 
and  general  in  its  legislation.  Perhaps  the  opponents  of  the  royal  preroga- 
tive lacked  the  intelligent  leadership  to  perceive  the  full  implication  of  the 
general  phrases  and  vague  terms  employed  in  legislative  enactments. 
Whatever  the  reasons,  we  have  a corresponding  lack  of  certitude  on  this 
second  legislation  concerning  writs  of  assistance.  We  should,  however, 
find  out  what  we  can. 

After  elections,  a new  Parliament  opened  on  Wednesday,  8 April 
1 66 1,1  and  like  all  Parliaments,  particularly  those  of  the  Stuarts,  soon 
started  a discussion  of  the  revenue.2  What  became  a particular  concern  for 
them  (and  for  a slightly  different  reason  particularly  concerns  our  pres- 
ent discussion)  was  the  discrepancy  between  the  actual  revenue  returns 
and  the  income  planned  by  the  previous  Parliament.  Sir  Philip  Warwick 
was  ordered  to  report  to  the  House  of  Commons  “the  State  of  the  Par- 
ticulars,” in  order  that  any  deficiency  in  His  Majesty’s  revenue  might  be 
considered.3  On  18  June  1 66 1 , he  reported  that  the  customs,  and  excise, 
and  crown  lands,  and  wine  licenses,  and  so  on,  would  all  fall  short  of  the 
estimated  value  and  that  the  “Total  of  the  Defects”  would  be  “Two 
hundred  Sixty-five  thousand  Pounds.”  For  his  part,  “he  recommended 
very  earnestly  the  Laws  for  coercive  Powers  to  be  strengthened.”  The 
Commons  in  turn  ordered  a committee  appointed  “to  inspect  and  exam- 
ine the  Business  of  the  King’s  Majesty’s  Revenue,  and  the  Particulars 
proposed  to  make  it  up.”  The  committee  was  empowered  to  set  up  sub- 
committees, receive  petitions  “And  to  send  for  Persons,  Papers,  Witneses, 
and  Records.”4 

The  committee  had  much  to  occupy  their  energies0  and  were  finally 

1 Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords , 8 April  1661,  xi.  240  j Journals  of  the  House  of 
Commons , 8 April  1661,  vm.  245. 

2 V .,  e.g-.,  Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons,  11  May  i66i,viii.  247  j 14  May,  pp. 
249,  2525  21  May,  p.  257,  etc. 

3 Ibid.,  13  June  1661,  vm.  270.  4 Ibid .,  18  June  1661,  vm.  273—274. 

5 Ibid.,  21  June  1661,  vm.  2755  22  June,  p.  278}  27  June,  pp.  282,  283. 


328  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

ordered  to  sit  de  die  in  diem  until  they  had  finished.0  How  much  time  was 
devoted  to  a discussion  of  strengthening  the  “Laws  for  coercive  powers” 
is  not  known ; but  it  is  known  that  the  committee  “had  conferred  with  the 
Officers  of  the  Custom  and  Excise,  and  his  Majesty’s  Surveyor  General 
[who  had  petitioned  the  previous  Parliament  for  powers],  and  the  Audi- 
tors of  the  Revenue,  and  others  who  were  best  able  to  give  Information 
concerning  the  Particulars,  whereof  his  Majesty’s  Revenue,  was  to  be 
made  up.”  The  conclusion  was  much  the  same  as  that  previously  ad- 
vanced by  Sir  Philip  Warwick  “that  the  Defects  [of  the  revenue]  . . . 
amounted  to  near  Three  hundred  thousand  Pounds;  and  that  new  Pow- 
ers should  be  added  for  the  better  bringing  in  of  the  Revenue.”  The  Com- 
mons resolved  to  take  up  the  matter  the  very  next  day  in  a grand  com- 
mittee.6 7 

The  next  day,  Sir  Robert  Atkins  was  made  chairman  of  the  discussion, 
replacing  the  Speaker,  Sir  Edward  Turner. s “After  long  and  serious  de- 
bate,” the  Commons  had  made  these  resolves:  to  advance  the  King’s  rev- 
enue by  a general  excise  tax  on  all  ale  and  beer;  to  levy  “by  way  of  Poll”; 
and,  finallv,  to  continue  the  discussion  at  the  next  meeting  of  Parliament 
(on  Monday)  “to  settle  the  Proportions.”0  There  is  no  hint  that  any  of 
this  involved  tightening  the  revenue  service — much  less  descended  into 
particulars  such  as  the  writs  of  assistance.  The  Commons  seemed  much 
more  concerned  in  settling  revenue  policy  than  in  strengthening  the  “co- 
ercive Powers.” 

There  was  no  report  on  the  revenue  discussions  (if  there  were  any) 
until  the  following  Thursday  and  then  only  to  say  that  no  resolution  had 
been  taken.1  There  was  a good  deal  of  subsequent  discussion — imposi- 
tions on  salt,  paper  and  parchment  were  considered — but  there  was  no 
definite  decision.2  At  the  end  of  July,  Parliament  adjourned3  having  re- 
solved to  “take  into  Consideration  the  Advance  of  the  King’s  Majesty’s 
Revenue”  “at  the  First  time  of  their  meeting  after  this  Recess.”4 

Parliament  reassembled  on  Wednesday,  20  November  1661,  and  the 
King  in  his  opening  speech  reminded  the  “Gentlemen  of  the  House  of 
Commons”  “of  the  crying  Debts  which  do  every  Day  call  upon  Me;  of 

6 Ibid.,  28  June  1661,  vm.  283 ; cf.  8 July,  p.  294}  9 July,  p.  296;  10  July,  p.  296. 

7 Ibid.,  12  July  1661,  VIII.  299.  8 Ibid.,  8 May  1661,  vm.  245. 

9 Ibid.,  1 3 July  1 661,  vm.  301. 

1 Ibid.,  1 8 July  1661,  vm.  305.  On  Friday,  Sir  Robert  Atkins  had  leave  to  go  to  the 
country.  Ibid.,  19  July,  p.  205. 

2 Ibid.,  20  July  1661,  VIII.  307  5 22  July,  p.  308 ; 23  July,  p.  309. 

3 Ibid.,  30  July  1661,  VIII.  316.  4 Ibid.,  26  July  1661,  VIII.  313. 


1 95 1 j Legislation  on  W rits  of  Assistance  329 


some  necessary  Provisions  which  are  to  be  made  without  Delay  for  the 
very  Safety  of  the  Kingdom;  of  the  great  Sum  of  Money  that  should  be 
ready  to  discharge  the  several  Fleets  when  they  come  Home;  and  for  the 
necessary  Preparations  that  are  to  be  made  for  the  setting  out  new  Fleets 
to  Sea  against  the  Spring.  . . .”5  When  the  Speaker  “reported”  to  the 
Commons  the  “effect”  of  His  Majesty’s  speech,  it  was  resolved  to  take 
into  consideration  the  advance  of  the  King’s  revenue  “the  first  publick 
Business  To-morrow  Morning.”0 

Thereafter  the  pressing  problem  was  not  the  reorganization  of  the  cus- 
toms service  nor  the  writs  of  assistance,  but  the  immediate  sum  to  be 
“speedily  raised  for  Supply  of  the  King’s  Majesty’s  present  Occasions.”7 
It  was  not  until  the  middle  of  January  that  the  Commons  got  around  to 
the  “Bill  for  preventing  Frauds  and  Abuses  to  his  Majesty,  in  relation  to 
his  Duties  of  Customs.”  It  was  read  for  the  first  time  on  18  January.8 

When  the  bill  was  read  the  second  time  a proviso  was  offered,  penaliz- 
ing those  officers  of  the  customs  who  held  up  anyone  by  putting  him  out 
of  his  turn,  or  who  overcharged,  or  who  denied  or  delayed  a proper  cus- 
toms certificate,  or  who  even  detained  the  goods  or  merchandise  of  any- 
one without  just  cause.  Furthermore,  a committee  was  set  up  to  consider 
the  bill,9  and,  besides  being  empowered  to  receive  proposals  for  the  ad- 
vance of  His  Majesty’s  customs,  they  were 


5 Journals  of  the  House  of  Lordsy  20  November,  XI.  332—333. 

6 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons , 20  November  1661,  vm.  316. 

7 Ibid. , 21  November  1661,  vm.  317;  cf.  22  November,  pp.  317,  318;  23  Novem- 
ber, p.  318;  27  November,  p.  321;  4 December,  p.  325;  6 December,  p.  326;  9 
December,  p.  328;  10  December,  p.  328,  etc. 

8 Ibid. , 18  January  1661/62,  VIII.  347. 

9 The  Committee  consisted  of  “Sir  Phil.  Warwick,  Mr.  Comptroller,  Mr.  Secretary 
Morris , Mr.  John  A shburnham,  Mr.  Edw.  Seymour , Sir  Edw.  Seymour , Mr.  Fane , 
Mr.  Phillips,  Sir  John  Duncomb , Sir  John  Nicholas , Mr.  Nicolas , Sir  Wm.  Lowther , 
Mr.  York , Sir  John  Goodrich , Sir  Tho  Strickland , Mr.  Henry  Coventry , Lord 
Bruce , Mr.  Strickland,  Sir  Clement  Fisher , Sir  John  Holland , Serjeant  Charlton , 
Mr.  Knight , Mr.  Marvill,  Mr.  Sam  Trelawney,  Mr.  Birchy  Mr.  Cliff  or  dy  Mr. 
Rigby y Sir  Allen  Broderick , Sir  Richard  Fordy  Mr.  Vice  Chamberlain  [Sir  George 
Carteret],  Mr.  Cofferer  [William  Ashburnham],  Sir  Clem.  Throckmorton , Mr. 
Henry  Seynour,  Lord  Fans  have  y Mr.  Phillip  sy  Sir  Robert  Howard,  Lord  Cornburyy 
Mr.  Nicholas , Mr.  Prynny  Colonel  Fretchviley  Sir  Wm.  Fleetwood,  Mr.  Goodrick, 
Mr.  Fra.  Finchy  Mr.  Tho.  Coventry , Sir  Clifford  Cliftony  Sir  Rich.  Franklyny  Sir 
Humph.  Bennety  Sir  Ralph  Banks , Mr.  Winston  Churchilly  Sir  Tho.  Meres , Sir 
Anth.  Irby , Mr.  Jonathan  Trelavmeyy  Sir  Allen  Apsleyy  Mr.  Kirkbyy  Mr.  Phillips, 
Sir  Hen  Puckering , alias  Newton , Mr.  Newton,  Mr.  Milward,  Colonel  Windhamy 
Colonel  Sandy sy  Sir  Tho.  Tompkinsy  Lord  de  le  Spencer , Sir  Robert  Holty  Dr. 
Birkinhead,  Mr.  Wreny  Sir  Ja.  Smith , Mr.  Spryy  Mr.  Cullifordy  Sir  Tho.  Eeey  Sir 
Tho.  Chute,  Sir  Chichester  Wrayy  Sir  John  Shaw y Mr.  W andesford,  Mr.  Ciscoweny 
Mr.  John  Churchill,  Mr.  Milward,  Mr.  Gilbyy  Mr.  Mountaguey  Sir  Gilbert  Gar - 


330  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

to  inquire  into  the  Number  and  Quality  of  the  Officers  belonging  to  the  Cus- 
toms, and  their  Salaries;  and  how  they  hold  their  Places;  and  How  they  have 
demeaned  themselves  therein;  and  who  are  fit  to  be  removed  or  continued;  and 
to  take  into  Consideration  such  Informations  and  Complaints  as  shall  be  offered 
against  any  of  them,  or  touching  any  Frauds  or  Abuses  in  the  Customs;  and  to 
consider  of  any  Proposals,  how  the  Officers  may  be  limited  and  regulated,  and 
their  Fees  ascertained;  and  to  bring  in  a Table  of  such  Fees  as  they  are  to  receive 
from  the  Merchants;  and  further  to  consider  how  the  Charge  in  collecting  and 
receiving  the  Customs  may  be  lessened;  and  to  receive  any  other  Informations 
and  Complaints  that  shall  be  made,  or  Proposals  that  shall  be  tendered,  for  the 
Advantage  of  the  King,  or  Ease  of  the  People,  in  relation  to  the  Levying  of  the 
Customs.  . . A 

The  whole  temper  of  the  discussion  seems  to  be  the  restriction  of  the 
Officers’  powers  and  not  their  enlargement.  Nothing  is  said  about  grant- 
ing additional  searching  powers  and  a good  deal  is  said  about  “how  the 
Officers  may  be  limited  and  regulated.”  It  may  be  that  this  Parliament 
was  to  grant  general  search  warrants  to  customs  officials,  but  it  would  not 
be  gathered  from  this  passage  in  the  Journals  oj  the  House  oj  Commons. 

This  committee  on  “Frauds  and  Abuses”  seems  to  have  lapsed  or  dis- 
solved into  the  subcommittee  to  consider  customs  fees,2  for  on  4 March 
it  was  ordered  revived  and  told  to  sit  de  die  in  diem.  When  the  bill  on 
frauds  was  finally  reported  on  14  March,  there  were  a few  amendments, 

rard,  Mr.  Orme , Mr.  Garraway , Sir  John  Robinson , Sir  Wm.  Thompson,  Mr.  Jol- 
lify Mr.  Broome  W horwood,  Sir  Solomon  Swale,  Mr.  Mortony  Mr.  Windham , Mr. 
Wm.  Sandys,  Mr.  W estp  haling,  Sir  Courtney  Poole , Lord  Angier,  Sir  Cha.  Harbord , 
Mr.  Harbord,  Sir  Tho.  Smith , Mr.  Smyth , Sir  Tho.  Leigh , Mr.  John  Jones,  Sir  Tho. 
Gore , Mr.  Whittaker,  Mr.  Bulteele,  Mr.  Chetwind,  Colonel  Robinson , Sir  Hen. 
North,  Mr.  Jolly,  Sir  Geo.  Ryve,  Mr.  George  Mountague,  Sir  Rich.  Everard,  Sir 
Anth.  Cope,  Sir  Edm.  Peirse , Mr.  Crouch,  Alderman  Fowke,  Sir  Theo.  Biddulph, 
Sir  John  Talbot , Sir  Wm.  Compton,  Mr.  Manwaring,  Mr.  Coriton,  Sir  Tho.  Wid- 
drington,  Sir  John  Harrison,  Sir  Edm.  Mosley,  Sir  John  Brampston,  Baron  of  Kin- 
derton,  Sir  John  Marley , Mr.  Attorney  of  the  Duchy  \_John  Heath],  Sir  Edw.  Har- 
low, Sir  Tho.  Littleton,  Mr.  Steward,  Colonel  Legg,  Sir  Ben.  Ayloff,  Mr.  Higgons, 
Sir  Wm.  Batten : and  all  the  members  of  this  House,  that  come  to  the  said  committee, 
are  to  have  voices  thereat.”  Ibid.,  29  January  1661/62,  VIII.  353,  354.  The  addi- 
tional names  have  been  supplied  by  Leo  Francis  Stock  (ed.),  Proceedings  and  De- 
bates of  the  British  Parliaments  Respecting  North  America  (Washington,  D.  C., 
1924—  ),  I.  295—296. 

1 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons,  29  January  1661/62,  VIII.  353-354. 

2 Cf.  ibid.,  6 February  1661/62,  vili.  359.  The  subcommittee  on  fees  seems  to  have 
been  quite  busy  and  were  ordered  to  sit  despite  the  “sitting  of  any  Grand  Committee, 
or  the  Committee  of  Customs.”  Ibid.,  8 March,  p.  382.  Their  work  is  evidenced  by 
the  tables  of  fees  adopted  before  Parliament  was  prorogued.  V.  ibid.,  22  April,  p. 
412;  10  May,  p.  426;  13  May,  p.  428;  16  May,  p.  432;  17  May,  p.  434;  19  May, 
P-  435- 


1951]  Legislation  on  W rits  of  Assistance  3 3 1 

alterations,  and  provisos  but  we  are  not  told  what  they  were.  Some  further 
alterations  were  made,  the  whole  agreed  to  and  the  bill  ordered  en- 
grossed.3 A few  days  later  the  bill  was  read  for  the  third  time.4  During 
the  subsequent  debate  one  proviso  was  passed  and  another  negatived,  but 
nothing  was  reported  about  the  powers  of  the  officers.3  Again  on  the  next 
day  (21  March),  the  debate  was  resumed  and  while  several  amendments 
were  proposed,  there  was  nothing  about  search  warrants.  The  bill  was 
passed  and  sent  to  the  House  of  Lords.6 

The  House  of  Lords  received  the  bill,  to  prevent  frauds  in  the  customs, 
read  it  twice  and  gave  it  to  a committee.7  There  were  several  unknown 
amendments  and  alterations  by  the  committee  which  were  agreed  to  by 
the  House  and  the  bill  was  read  the  third  time,  passed,8  and  sent  back  to 
the  House  of  Commons.9  After  a few  false  starts,1  all  of  these  new  amend- 
ments from  the  House  of  Lords  were  agreed  to  by  the  House  of  Com- 
mons except  one;2  over  this  they  asked  for  a conference.3  The  Commons 
objected  to  the  clause  “which  is  concerning  Offenders  against  that  Act  to 
be  proceeded  against  by  the  Justices  of  the  Peace.”4  After  consideration 
the  Lords  agreed  to  the  original  reading,5  and  the  bill  was  accepted  in 
that  form  by  the  King  on  19  May  1662. 6 

3 Ibid.,  14  March  1661/62,  vm.  387;  v.e.,  13  March,  p.  386. 

4 Ibid.,  19  March  1661/62,  vm.  390;  v.e.,  17  March,  p.  388. 

5 Ibid.,  20  March  1661/62,  VI 11.  391. 

6 Ibid.,  21  March  1661/62,  VIII.  391-392. 

7 Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords , 21  March  1661/62,  xi.  413  j 22  March,  p.  4145 
24  March,  pp.  416—417.  The  committee  in  the  House  of  Lords  consisted  of:  “Lord 
Privy  Seal,  Marq.  Winton,  L.  Chamberlain,  Comes  Derby,  Comes  Bridgwater, 
Comes  Bollinbrooke,  Comes  Portland,  Comes  Anglesey,  Comes  Carlile,  Viscount 
Stafford,  Abp.  Yorke,  Bp.  Durham,  Bp.  Oxon.,  Bp.  Sarum,  Bp.  Lyncolne,  Bp.  St. 
David’s,  Bp.  Exon.,  Bp.  Norwich,  Bp.  Hereford,  Ds.  Craven,  Ds.  Lucas,  Ds.  Lex- 
ington, Ds.  Townsend,  Ds.  Ashley.”  Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords,  24  March 
1661/62,  XI.  416—417. 

Some  time  previously  a petition  of  masters  and  owmers  of  ships  complaining  of 
“an  Oppression  concerning  Ballast”  had  been  given  to  a committee  but  we  hear  no 
more  about  it.  Ibid.,  17  June  1661,  p.  282. 
s Ibid.,  17  April  1662,  xi.  432. 

9 Ibid.,  19  April  1662,  xi.  433 ; Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons,  19  April  1662, 
vm.  410. 

1 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons,  22  April  1662,  vm.  412 ; 24  April,  p.  413. 

2 Ibid.,  28  April  1662,  vm.  415. 

3 Ibid.,  3 May  1662,  VIII.  418;  Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords,  3 May  1662,  XI. 
443- 

4 Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords,  3 May  1662,  xi.  444. 

5 Ibid. 

6 Ibid.,  19  May  1662,  xi.  471. 


332  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

There  was  little  discussion,  then,  that  was  explicitly  reported  by  the 
House  of  Lords.  The  few  phrases  we  do  have  indicate  no  questioning  of 
the  writ  of  assistance  as  proposed  in  this  bill  “for  preventing  Frauds  and 
regulating  Abuses  in  his  Majesties  Customes.”  Oddly  enough,  this  is  a 
very  important  point,  for,  as  will  be  discussed  somewhat  later,  the  Peers 
were  very  particular  about  who  searched  their  houses  and  under  what  au- 
thority. Even  when  the  Commons  were  willing  to  grant  fairly  general 
searching  privileges  to  the  King’s  officers,  the  Peers  insisted  that  their 
houses  be  exempt  from  any  such  provision.  It  would  indeed  be  strange,  if 
the  writ  of  assistance  mentioned  in  this  bill  for  preventing  frauds  was 
understood  to  be  a more  general  search  warrant  than  any  other  provided 
by  Parliament,  and  the  Peers,  who  fought  every  other  general  search 
measure,  had  nothing  to  report  about  this  instance.  It  is  an  eloquent  si- 
lence which  leads  one  to  question  the  interpretation  of  this  bill  as  providing 
a general  writ  of  assistance. 

But  what  precisely  did  the  bill  provide  in  the  way  of  search  and  search 
warrants?  In  the  first  place  the  power  to  search  ships  and  vessels  was 
quite  general  and  was  had  in  virtue  of  the  customs  office. 

And  be  it  hereby  alsoe  enacted  That  the  said  person  or  persons  which  are  or 
shall  be  appointed  for  managing  the  Customes  and  Officers  of  His  Majesties 
Customes  and  theire  Deputies  are  hereby  authorized  and  enabled  to  goe  and  en- 
ter aboard  any  Ship  or  Vessel  as  wel  Ships  of  War  as  Merchant  Ships  and  from 
thence  to  bring  on  shoar  all  Goods  prohibited  or  uncustomed  except  Jewels  if 
they  be  Outwards  bound  and  if  they  be  Ships  or  Vessels  Inwards  bound  from 
thence  to  bring  on  shoare  into  his  Majesties  Store  house  as  aforesaid  all  smal 
Parcels  of  Fine  Goods  or  other  Goods  which  shall  be  found  in  Cabbins  Chests 
Trunks  or  other  small  Package  or  in  any  private  or  secret  place  in  or  out  of  the 
Hold  of  the  Ship  or  Vessell  which  may  occasion  a just  suspition  that  they  were 
intended  to  be  fraudelently  conveyed  away  And  all  other  sorts  of  Goods  what- 
soever for  which  the  Dutyes  of  Tonnage  and  Poundage  were  not  payed  or  com- 
pounded for  within  twenty  dayes  after  the  first  Entry  of  the  Ship  to  be  put  and 
remaine  in  the  Store  house  aforesaid  until  his  Majesties  Duties  thereupon  be 
justly  satisfied  unlesse  the  said  person  or  persons  which  are  or  shall  be  appointed 
by  His  Majesty  for  managing  the  Customs  and  Officers  of  the  Customes  shall 
see  just  cause  to  allow  a longer  time  and  that  the  said  person  or  persons  which 
are  or  shall  be  so  appointed  to  manage  the  Customs  and  the  Officers  of  the  Cus- 
toms and  their  Deputies  may  freely  stay  and  remain  aboard  untill  all  the  Goods 
are  delivered  and  discharged  out  of  the  said  Ships  or  Vessells  . . . 

And  be  it  further  enacted  by  the  Authority  aforesaid  That  in  case  after  the 
clearing  of  any  Ship  or  Vessel  by  the  person  or  persons  which  are  or  shall  be  ap- 
pointed by  His  Majesty  for  managing  the  Customes  or  any  their  Deputies  and 


1951]  Legislation  on  Writs  of  Assistance  333 

discharging  the  Watchmen  or  Tidcsmen  from  attendance  thereupon  there  shall 
be  found  on  board  such  Ship  or  Vessell  any  Goods  Wares  or  Merchandizes  which 
have  becne  concealed  from  the  knowledge  of  the  said  person  or  persons  which  are 
or  shall  be  so  appointed  to  manage  the  Customes  and  for  which  the  Customes 
Subsidy  and  other  Dutycs  due  upon  the  Importation  thereof  have  not  beene 
paid  then  the  Master  Purser  or  other  person  taking  charge  of  such  Shipp  or  Ves- 
sell shall  forfeit  the  sum  of  One  hundred  pounds  . . .7 

This  was  clear  enough,  and  seems  to  have  caused  little  dispute.  The 
searching  of  vessels  was  not  the  problem.  It  was  the  authorization  for  the 
search  of  houses  that  was  to  cause  all  the  difficulty.  The  clause  reads  as 
follows: 

And  it  shall  be  lawfull  to  or  for  any  person  or  persons  authorized  by  Writt  of 
Assistance  under  the  Seale  of  his  Majestyes  Court  of  Exchequer  to  take  a Con- 
stable Headborough  or  other  Publique  Officer  inhabiting  neare  unto  the  place 
and  in  the  day  time  to  enter  and  go  into  any  House  Shop  Cellar  Ware-house  or 
Room  or  other  place  and  in  case  of  resistance  to  breake  open  Doores  Chests 
Trunks  and  other  Package  there  to  seize  and  from  thence  to  bring  any  kind  of 
Goods  & Merchandize  whatsoever  prohibited  and  uncustomed  and  to  put  and 
secure  the  same  in  his  Majesties  Store  house  in  the  Port  next  to  the  place  where 
such  seizure  shall  be  made.8 

There  are  several  things  to  be  noted  about  these  clauses  and  phrases. 
In  the  first  place  the  search  was  to  be  conducted  in  virtue  of  a warrant 
and  not  in  virtue  of  the  office  as  was  done  on  shipboard.  The  warrant  was 
issued  from  the  Court  of  Exchequer  and  was  technically  a writ  of  as- 
sistance. It  was  limited  to  daytime  use  and  required  the  presence  of  a 
local  official.  It  explicitly  included  the  right  to  overcome  resistance.  The 
phrase  that  it  was  to  “be  lawfull  to  or  for  any  person  or  persons”  was 
restricted  to  customs  officials  by  the  sixteenth  clause  of  the  same  act.9 

7 14  Car.  II  c.  11,  Statutes  of  the  Realm , V.  394.  Cf.  the  following  paragraph  on 
searching  ships  of  war.  They  “shall  be  lyable  to  all  Searches  and  other  Rules  which 
Merchants  Ships  are  subject  unto  by  the  usage  of  His  Majesties  Custome  house  (vict- 
ualling Bills  & entring  excepted)  upon  pain  to  forfeit  One  hundred  pounds  And 
upon  refusal  to  make  such  Entries  as  aforesaid  as  wel  Outwards  as  Inwards  the  said 
person  or  persons  which  are  or  shall  be  appointed  for  managing  the  Customes  and 
Officers  of  His  Majesties  Customes  and  their  Deputies  shall  and  may  freely  enter  and 
go  on  board  all  and  every  such  Ship  or  Vessel  of  War  and  bring  from  thence  on 
shoar  into  His  Majesties  Store  house  belonging  to  the  Port  where  such  Ship  shall 
be  all  Goods  and  Merchandizes  prohibited  or  uncustomed  w’hich  shall  be  found 
aboard  any  such  Ship  as  aforesaid.”  Ibid. 

8 Ibid. 

9 “And  forasmuch  as  it  doth  appeare  by  dayly  experience  that  there  are  great  Prac- 
tises and  Combinations  betweene  the  Importers  and  Owners  of  Goods  and  Merchan- 


3 34  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

The  whole  problem  of  the  act,  however,  was  not  who  had  use  of  a 
writ  of  assistance  but  what  was  a writ  of  assistance.  Was  the  writ  a gen- 
eral standing  warrant  issued  to  each  customs  official  once  and  for  all 
which  he  could  then  use  at  his  discretion  anywhere  to  search  for  uncus- 
tomed goods?  Or  was  it  the  specific  writ  envisioned  by  12  Car.  II  c.  19 
where  an  oath  was  required  to  start  the  process  and  the  informer  liable 
to  suit  for  damages?  Perhaps  we  can  find  out. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  this  session  of  Parliament  had  been  advised  to 
strengthen  the  “Laws  for  coercive  Powers”  and  to  add  “new  Powers  . . . 
for  the  better  bringing  in  of  the  Revenue.”  Was  this  new  warrant  intend- 
ed to  be  a vast  extension  over  the  old?  There  is  nothing  in  the  act  to  in- 
dicate that  it  was;  nor,  other  than  the  phrases  quoted,  anything  in  the  de- 
bates. On  the  other  hand,  there  are  a few  things  to  indicate  that  it  was  not. 

The  enacting  language  and  conditions  set  down  are  much  the  same  in 
both  laws: 


12  Car.  II  c.  19 

it  shall  be  lawfull  to  and  for  the  Lord 
Treasurer  or  any  of  the  Barons  afore- 
said or  cheife  Magistrate  of  the  Port 
or  Place  where  the  offence  shall  be 
committed  or  the  Place  next  adjoyn- 
ing  thereunto  to  issue  out  a Warrant 
to  any  person  or  persons  thereby  en- 
abling him  or  them  with  the  assist- 
ance of  a Sheriffe  Justice  of  Peace  or 
Constable  to  enter  into  any  House  in 
the  day  time  where  such  Goods  are 
suspected  to  be  concealed,  and  in  case 
of  resistance  to  breake  open  such 


14  Car.  II  c.  11 

And  it  shall  be  lawfull  to  or  for  any 
person  or  persons  authorized  by  Writt 
of  Assistance  under  the  Seale  of  his 
Majestyes  Court  of  Exchequer  to  take 
a Constable  Headborough  or  other 
Publique  Officer  inhabiting  neare  un- 
to the  place  and  in  the  day  time  to  en- 
ter and  go  into  any  House  Shop  Cel- 
ler  Ware-house  or  Room  or  other  place 
and  in  case  of  resistance  to  breake  open 
Doores  Chests  Trunks  and  other  Pack- 
age there  to  seize  and  from  thence  to 
bring  any  kind  of  Goods  & Merchan- 


dizes and  the  Seizers  and  Informers  with  design  and  intent  to  defraud  the  force  of 
the  Law  and  His  Majesty  of  His  Duties  and  Customes  Be  it  enacted  by  the  Authority 
aforesaid  That  no  Ship  or  Shipps  Goods  Wares  or  Merchandize  shall  be  seized  as 
forfeited  for  or  by  reason  of  unlawfull  Importation  or  Exportation  into  or  out  of 
this  Kingdome  of  England  Dominion  of  Wales  or  Port  and  Town  of  Berwick  or  any 
the  Ports  Members  or  Creeks  thereunto  belonging  or  for  not  payment  of  any  Cus- 
tomes or  Subsidies  nowe  due  or  hereafter  to  be  due  and  payable  to  His  Majestie  but 
by  the  person  or  persons  who  are  or  shall  be  appointed  by  His  Majestie  to  manage 
His  Customes  or  Officers  of  His  Majesties  Customes  for  the  time  being  or  such  other 
person  or  persons  as  shall  be  deputed  and  authorized  thereunto  by  Warrant  from 
the  Lord  Treasurer  or  Under  Treasurer  or  by  special  Commission  from  His  Majes- 
ty under  the  Great  or  Privy  Seale  And  if  any  Seizure  shall  hereafter  be  made  by  any 
other  person  or  persons  whatsoever  for  any  the  Causes  aforesaid  such  Seizure  shall 
be  void  and  of  none  effect  Any  Statute  Law  or  Provision  to  the  contrary  in  any 
wise  notwithstanding.”  lbid.y  p.  397. 


1951]  Legislation  on  Writs  of  Assistance  335 


Houses,  and  to  seize  and  secure  the 
same  goods  soc  concealed,  And  all  Of- 
ficers and  Ministers  of  Justice  are 
hereby  required  to  be  aiding  and  as- 
sisting thereunto.1 


dizc  whatsoever  prohibited  and  uncus- 
tomed and  to  put  and  secure  the  same 
in  his  Majesties  Store  house  in  the 
Port  next  to  the  place  where  such 
seizure  shall  be  made.2 


Furthermore,  14  Car.  II  c.  11  was  not  just  an  enactment — or  re- 
enactment— of  the  writ  of  assistance.  It  included  a variety  of  measures 
intended  to  plug  the  holes  in  the  navigation  laws  of  the  mercantile  sys- 
tem: e.g.,  entries  were  to  be  made  on  oath,  warships  were  subject  to 
search,  armed  resistance  to  customs  officials  heavily  penalized,3  and  the 
provisions  on  English  ships  clarified.  This  could  well  cover  any  intention 
to  broaden  the  powers  of  the  customs  officials.  Besides,  as  we  have  seen,4 
the  Commons  while  strengthening  the  mercantile  system  seemed  to  want 
a restriction  in  the  customs  officials.  Thus,  in  this  act  they  tagged  on  the 
limitation  of  search  and  seizure  to  officers  properly  appointed. 

Thus,  too,  the  first  act  (12  Car.  II  c.  19)  was  not  allowed  to  lapse 
but  was  continually  re-enacted.  If  14  Car.  II  c.  1 1 really  intended  a new 
and  general  search  warrant  and  was  meant  to  supersede  the  previous  act, 
there  would  be  no  point  in  continually  re-enacting  the  old  outmoded 
form,  and  12  Car.  II  c.  19  would  have  been  allowed  to  die.  But  if  one 
act  was  explained  by  the  other,  then  they  should  both  be  re-enacted,  as 
they  were.  Any  general  writ  of  assistance  would  have  made  12  Car.  II 
c.  19  completely  anachronous;  yet  it  was  constantly  passed  as  if  it  were 
an  explanation  of  14  Car.  II  c.  II.5 


1 Ibid.,  p.  250. 

2 Ibid.,  p.  394. 

3 An  interesting  case  under  this  clause  arose  in  America  in  April,  1768,  concerning 
the  brig  Lydia.  See  the  documents  in  the  Public  Record  Office,  Treasury  Papers,  Se- 
ries 1,  465,  466.  Compare  the  proposals  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs  in 
Scotland  for  the  improvement  of  the  revenue,  5 December  1768.  Ibid.,  4.67. 

4 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons,  29  January  1661/62,  VIII.  353—354;  sufra, 
pp.  21—22. 

5 Cf.  “An  Act  for  confirming  Publique  Acts,”  1 3 Car.  II  c.  7,  Statutes  of  the  Realm, 
V.  309-3 10 ; “An  Act  for  setleing  the  Revenue  on  His  Majestie  for  His  Life  which 
was  setled  on  His  late  Majestie  for  His  Life,”  1 Jac.  II  c.  1,  ibid.,  VI.  1 ; “An  Act 
for  making  good  Deficiencies  & for  preserving  the  Publick  Credit,”  1 Ann.  c.  7,  ibid., 
viii.  40-485  “An  Act  for  reviving  continuing  and  appropriating  certain  Duties  up- 
on several  Commodities  to  be  exported  and  certain  Duties  upon  Coals  to  be  wrater- 
born  and  carried  coastwise  and  for  granting  further  Duties  upon  Candles  for  Thirty 
two  years  to  raise  Fifteen  hundred  thousand  Pounds  by  Way  of  a Lottery  for  the 
Service  of  the  Year  One  thousand  seven  hundred  and  eleven  and  for  suppressing 
such  unlawful  Lotteries  and  such  Insurance  Offices  as  are  therein  mentioned,”  9 
Ann.  c.  6,  ibid.,  ix.  366—384;  “An  Act  for  redeeming  the  Duties  and  Revenues 


3 3 6 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

Besides  these  points,  we  have  a few  other  indications  of  the  intentions 
of  Parliament  from  the  debate  and  enactment  of  other  bills  in  the  same 
session. 

Unfortunately,  there  is  no  report  of  the  debate  or  discussions  on  the 
confirmation  of  the  previous  act  to  prevent  frauds  (12  Car.  II  c.  19).  It 
was  included  in  a general  confirmatory  act6  and  passed  with  no  reported 
discussion  of  search  warrants.7 

The  same  is  generally  true  of  the  bill  for  the  improvement  of  the  ex- 
cise. Before  Parliament  adjourned  in  July,  the  Lord  Treasurer  was  asked 
to  send  commissions  to  all  the  counties  directed  to  the  members  of  Parlia- 
ment and  the  justices  of  the  peace  “to  inspect  the  Revenue  of  the  Excise 
upon  Beer  and  Ale,  and  other  Liquors;  and  to  inform  themselves,  against 
the  next  Meeting  of  the  Parliament,  how  the  Excise  came  to  fall  short  in 
the  Proportion  of  Three  hundred  thousand  Pounds  fer  Ann.  and  how, 
for  the  future,  it  may  be  advanced  with  the  most  Ease  to  the  People,  and 
collected  with  the  least  Charge  to  his  Majesty.”8  But  there  was  no  sub- 
sequent discussion  of  search  warrants  as  part  of  the  plan,  and  the  bill  seems 
to  have  died  in  committee,  for  it  was  not  passed  until  the  next  session.9 

It  is  from  the  discussions  of  the  militia  bill  or  “An  Act  for  ordering  the 

which  were  settled  to  pay  off  Principal  and  Interest  on  the  Orders  made  forth  on 
four  Lottery-Acts  passed  in  the  ninth  and  tenth  years  of  her  late  Majesty’s  Reign; 
and  for  redeeming  certain  Annuities  payable  on  Orders  out  of  the  Hereditary  Ex- 
cise, according  to  a former  Act  in  that  Behalf;  and  for  establishing  a General  yearly 
Fund,  not  only  for  the  future  Payment  of  Annuities  at  several  Rates,  to  be  payable 
and  transferable  at  the  Bank  of  England , and  redeemable  by  Parliament,  but  also  to 
raise  Monies  for  such  Proprietors  of  the  said  Orders  as  shall  choose  to  be  paid  their 
Principal  and  Arrears  of  Interest  in  ready  Money;  and  for  making  good  such  other 
Deficiencies  and  Payments  as  in  this  Act  are  mentioned;  and  for  taking  off  the  Du- 
ties on  Linseed  imported,  and  British  Linen  exported,”  3 Geo.  I c.  7,  Statutes  at 
Large  (London,  1763),  V.  104— 1 19. 

6 “An  Act  for  confirming  Publique  Acts,”  1 3 Car.  II  c.  7,  Statutes  of  the  Realm , v. 
309-310. 

7 Cf.  Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons , 13  May  1661,  VIII.  247-248;  14  May,  p. 
249  ;.i6  May,  p.  252 ; 28  May,  p.  260;  13  June,  p.  270;  14  June,  p.  271 ; 15  June, 
p.  272;  17  June,  p.  273;  1 8 June,  p.  284;  19  June,  p.  275;  22  June,  p.  278;  1 July, 
p.  287;  Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords , 2 July  1661,  xi.  296;  3 July,  p.  296;  3 
July,  p.  298;  6 July,  p.  300;  8 July,  p.  303. 

8 Journals  of  the  House  of  Co7nmonsy  23  July  1661,  VIII.  309;  cf.  18  January 
1661/62,  p.  347;  22  January,  p.  349;  23  January,  p.  350;  28  January,  p.  352;  3 
February,  p.  356;  7 February,  p.  361;  18  February,  pp.  367-368;  21  February, 
p.  370;  15  March,  p.  387 ; 21  March,  p.  393 ; 26  April  1662,  p.  414;  28  April,  p. 
414;  7 May,  p.  423- 

9 “An  Additionall  Act  for  the  better  ordering  and  collecting  the  Duty  of  Excise 
and  preventing  the  Abuses  therein,”  15  Car.  II  c.  11,  Statutes  of  the  Realm , V.  488- 
492. 


1951]  Legislation  on  Writs  of  Assistance  337 

Forces  in  the  several  Counties  of  this  Kingdom”1  that  we  derive  most  of 
our  light  on  the  ideas  of  tin's  Parliament  concerning  search  warrants.  T he 
hill  is  important  to  us  principally  because  we  have  some  notation  of  the 
debate  on  the  provisions  for  searching  houses  for  arms. 

The  whole  problem  of  military  forces  and  arms  had  given  Parliament 
a good  deal  of  concern  since  the  Restoration.  The  first  Parliament  of 
Charles  had  been  mostly  interested  in  paying  salary  arrears  and  disband- 
ing the  army.2  The  present  Parliament  seemed  more  concerned  with  the 
preservation  of  the  royal  person  and  royal  prerogative.  It  early  passed 
“An  Act  for  Safety  and  Preservation  of  His  Majesties  Person  and  Gov- 
ernment against  Treasonable  and  Seditious  practices  and  attempts,”3  and 
not  much  later  introduced  the  whole  militia  question  which  resulted 
eventually  in  a discussion  of  the  search  problem. 

On  14  May  1 66 1 , Sir  Heneage  Finch,  the  King’s  solicitor  general,4 
and  Sergeant  Charlton  were  ordered  to  prepare  a bill  for  settling  the  mi- 
litia.5 It  did  not  take  long,  for  the  bill  was  read  for  the  first  time  three 

1 14  Car.  II  c.  3,  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  V.  358-364. 

2 V.,  e.g.,  “An  Act  for  the  speedy  provision  of  money  for  disbanding  and  paying  off 
the  forces  of  this  Kingdome  both  by  Land  and  Sea,”  12  Car.  II  c.  9,  Statutes  of  the 
Realm , v.  207—225;  “An  Act  for  supplying  and  explaining  certaine  defects  in  an 
Act  entituled  An  Act  for  the  speedy  provision  of  money  for  disbanding  and  paying 
off  the  forces  of  this  kingdome  both  by  Land  and  Sea,”  12  Car.  II  c.  10,  ibid.,  pp. 
225-226;  “An  Act  for  the  speedy  disbanding  of  the  Army  and  Garrisons  of  this 
Kingdome,”  12  Car.  II  c.  15,  ibid.,  pp.  238-241;  “An  Act  for  inabling  the  Soul- 
diers  of  the  Army  now  to  be  disbanded  to  exercise  Trades,”  12  Car.  II  c.  16,  ibid., 
pp.  241—242;  “An  Act  for  raising  seaven-score  thousand  pounds  for  the  compleate 
disbanding  of  the  whole  Army  and  paying  off  some  part  of  the  Navy,”  12  Car.  II 
c.  20,  ibid.,  pp.  250—251;  “An  Act  for  granting  unto  the  Kings  Majestie  Fower 
hundred  and  twenty  thousand  pounds  by  an  Assessment  of  three  score  and  ten  thou- 
sand pounds  by  the  moneth  for  six  moneths  for  disbanding  the  remainder  of  the  Ar- 
my, and  paying  off  the  Navy,”  12  Car.  II  c.  27,  ibid.,  pp.  269—277;  “An  Act  for 
further  suplying  and  explaining  certaine  defects  in  an  Act  intituled  An  Act  for  the 
speedy  provision  of  money  for  disbanding  and  paying  off  the  forces  of  this  kingdome 
both  by  land  and  sea,”  12  Car.  II  c.  28,  ibid.,  pp.  277—282;  Journals  of  the  House 
of  Commons,  April  25,  1660  to  29  December  1660,  VIII.  1—244,  Passim ; Journals 
of  the  House  of  Lords,  25  April  1660  to  29  December  1660,  xi.  1—239,  passim. 

3 1 3 Car.  II  Stat.  I,  c.  1,  Statutes  of  the  Realm , V.  304. 

4 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons,  8 May  1661,  Vin.  245. 

5 Ibid.,  14  May  1661,  vm.  249.  Both  of  these  men  had  been  prominent  in  the  pre- 
vious Parliament  with  bills  involving  search.  Sir  Heneage  Finch  had  reported 
amendments  from  the  grand  committee  for  the  bill  to  prevent  frauds  and  conceal- 
ments. Ibid.,  10  September  1660,  vm.  161 ; supra,  p.  8.  Both  of  them  had  been  ap- 
pointed to  w’ork  on  abolishing  the  Court  of  Wards.  Ibid.,  21  December  1660,  vm. 
220;  cf.  23  November  1660,  p.  189;  12  December,  p.  204.  In  the  present  Parliament 
both  were  to  be  appointed  (with  Charlton  as  chairman)  to  help  prepare  a bill  for 
granting  “twelve  hundred  and  three  score  thousand  pounds”  to  the  King.  13  Car. 


338  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

days  later.6  After  the  second  reading  on  2 1 May7  real,  serious  debate  be- 
gan. It  was  resolved  to  discuss  the  bill  every  morning  at  ten  o’clock  until 
its  completion.8  There  were  occasional  reports  of  “much  Debate”0  with 
“little  Progress”1  or  “some  Progress”2  or  “further  Progress,”3  but  it  be- 
came evident  that  a temporary  measure  would  have  to  be  passed  if  any- 
thing at  all  was  to  be  accomplished  before  the  first  adjournment.4  This 
temporary  measure,  “An  Act  declaring  the  sole  Right  of  the  Militia  to 
be  in  King  and  for  the  present  ordering  & disposing  the  same,”5  was  read 
and  finally  passed  with  amendments  and  provisos  on  17  July.6  Within  a 
week,  the  House  of  Lords  had  passed  the  bill'  and  it  was  accepted  by  the 
King  on  the  day  of  adjournment.8 

Parliament  had  been  reassembled  about  a month,  and  the  House  of 
Commons  had  reconstituted  the  committee  on  the  militia  bill,9  when  the 
King  sent  a message  to  the  House  of  Lords,  “that,  besides  the  Apprehen- 
sions and  Fears  that  are  generally  Abroad,  His  Majesty  hath  received 
Letters  from  several  Parts  of  the  Kingdom,  and  also  by  intercepted  Let- 
ters it  does  appear,  that  divers  discontented  Persons  are  endeavouring  to 
raise  new  troubles,  to  the  Disturbance  of  the  Peace  of  the  Kingdom. 
. . .”1  The  Lords  conferred  with  the  Commons  and  a joint  committee 

II  Stat.  II,  c.  3,  Statutes  of  the  Realm , V.  325-348;  Journals  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons , 27  November  1661,  vm.  321.  Both  were  to  be  appointed  to  the  committee 
on  a temporary  bill  to  regulate  printing.  Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons , 26 
July  1661,  VIII.  313;  cf.  25  July,  p.  312.  Charlton  was  also  to  be  appointed  to  the 
committee  on  the  bill  for  preventing  frauds  and  abuses  in  the  customs.  Ibid .,  29  Jan- 
uary 1661/62,  p.  354. 

6 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons , 17  May  1661,  VIII.  254. 

7 Ibid.,  21  May  1661,  vm.  257.  8 Ibid.,  22  May  1661,  vm.  258. 

9 E.g.,  ibid.,  1 7 June  1 661,  vm.  273. 

1 E.g.,  ibid.,  18  June  1661,  vm.  274. 

2 E.g.,  ibid.,  17  June  1661,  VIII.  273. 

3 E.g.,  ibid.,  19  June  1661,  vm.  275 ; v.e.,  ibid.,  1 June,  p.  264;  8 June,  p.  267 ; 25 
June,  p.  280;  28  June,  p.  284;  9 July,  p.  296. 

4 Ibid.,  16  July  1661,  viii.  303. 

5 13  Car.  II  Stat.  I,  c.  6,  Statutes  of  the  Realm , V.  308. 

6 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons , 17  July  1661,  vm.  304. 

7 Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords,  22  July  1661,  XI.  317;  cf.  ibid.,  18  July,  p.  313; 
19  July,  p.  314;  27  July,  p.  323  ; Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons,  27  July  1661, 
VIII.  314. 

8 Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords,  30  July  1661,  xi.  330;  Journals  of  the  House  of 
Commons,  30  July  1661,  vm.  316. 

9 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons,  3 December  1661,  VIII.  324;  cf.  ibid.,  6 De- 
cember, p.  326. 

1 Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords,  19  December  1661,  xi.  355. 


1951]  Legislation  on  W rits  of  Assistance  339 

was  appointed  to  sit  during  the  Christmas  recess.2  But  beyond  hearings 
the  committee  did  little  or  nothing.  It  was  too  near  and  too  like  the  Com- 
monwealth. Ugly  rumors  got  around  about  “a  Plot  to  govern  by  an  Ar- 
my,”and  as  the  Lords  seemed  unimpressed  by  the  royal  report,  the  joint 
committee  dissolved  as  soon  as  Parliament  reassembled.4  The  committee 
of  the  Commons,  however,  “was  very  sensible  of  the  real  Danger;  and 
hoped  this  House  [of  Commons]  would  be  so  too.  . . .” 5 It  was  in  such 
an  atmosphere  that  the  Commons  on  the  very  next  day  resolved  itself  in- 
to a committee  of  the  whole  “to  consider  of  the  Militia;  and  also  . . . such 
Proposals  as  shall  be  offered,  for  preventing  the  present  Dangers,  and  se- 
curing the  Peace  of  the  Kingdom.”0 

The  debate  was  quite  extensive7  with  some  progress  and  occasionally 
“a  good  Progress”8  being  made.  There  was  even  talk  of  finishing  the 
bill  about  the  middle  of  February,0  but  it  was  still  in  committee  when  the 
King  called  the  Commons  up  to  Whitehall  on  i March.1  We  have  no 
report  of  what  the  King  said,  but  the  Commons  came  back  and  resolved 
that  the  “Revenue,  the  Militia,  and  Highways,  be  first  taken  into  Consid- 
eration, and  in  Order  proceeded  in:  And  that  no  other  Business  shall  in- 
tervene, till  these  be  finished.”2  Three  days  later  the  Commons  finished 
the  militia  bill,3  and  on  7 March  it  was  ordered  to  be  engrossed  with  its 
alterations  and  additions,  amendments  and  provisos.4  Finally,  after  a little 
more  debate,  the  bill  was  passed  and  carried  up  to  the  House  of  Lords.5 

When  the  bill  came  up  to  the  House  of  Lords,6  the  search  provisions 
were  quite  general:  the  lieutenants  of  the  army  or  their  deputies  could 

2 Ibid. 

3 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons , 10  January  1661/62,  vm.  342. 

4 Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords}  7 January  1661/62,  XI.  3595  Journals  of  the 
House  of  Commons , 10  January  1661/62,  vm.  342. 

0 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons , 10  January  1661/62,  vm.  3425  cf.  ibid.y  7 
January,  p.  341. 

6 lbid.y  11  January  1 661/62,  vm.  343. 

7 Ibid.y  11  January  1661/62,  vm.  343-3445  14  January,  p.  3455  17  January,  p. 
3475  22  January,  p.  3495  31  January,  p.  3555  13  February,  p.  3635  22  February, 
p.  3715  26  February,  pp.  373“374- 

8 Ibid.,  17  January,  1 661/62,  vm.  347. 

9 Ibid.y  13  February  1661/62,  VIII.  363. 

1 Ibid.y  28  February  1661/ 62,  vm.  3755  1 March,  pp.  375—376. 

2 Ibid.,  1 March  1661/62,  vm.  3 76. 

3 Ibid.y  4 March  1661/62,  vm.  3785  cf.  ibid.y  6 March,  p.  380. 

4 Ibid.y  7 March  1 661/ 62,  vm.  381. 

5 Ibid.y  11  March  1661/62,  vm.  3845  13  March,  p.  3865  14  March,  p.  387. 

6 Journals  of  the  House  of  Lordsy  14  March  1661/62,  xi.  407. 


340  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

issue  warrants  to  search  for  arms  in  the  possession  of  anyone  they  con- 
sidered dangerous  to  the  peace  of  the  kingdom.  No  time  was  excluded  and 
no  place.  A local  official  was  required  to  be  present.7 

In  the  House  of  Lords  the  bill  was  read  for  the  first  time  on  20  March,8 
but  it  was  almost  a month  later  before  the  bill  was  approved  with  some 
very  important  amendments.9  The  Peers  had  balked  at  the  general  search 
provisions  and  added  a proviso  that  severely  limited  the  search  of  their 
own  houses  and  even  added  some  protection  to  others:  “Provided  that  no 
such  Search  be  made  in  any  house  or  houses  between  Sun  setting  and  Sun 
rising  other  then  in  Cities  and  Townes  Corporate  And  that  no  house  of 
any  Peere  of  this  Realme  be  searched  but  by  immediate  Warrant  from 
His  Majesty  under  His  Sign  Manual. 5,1  It  seems  the  Lords  wanted  to  ex- 
clude their  houses  from  search  except  by  immediate  warrant  of  the  King, 
and  then  exclude  their  country  houses  from  all  night  searches. 

With  this  and  other  amendments  (which  are  of  little  concern  for  our 
discussion)  the  bill  was  shipped  back  to  the  House  of  Commons.2  Here 
all  these  amendments  were  subjected  to  debate,3  and  by  3 May  the  Com- 
mons had  reached  the  amendment  on  search.  They  did  not  particularly 
care  to  see  the  houses  of  the  Peers  given  so  many  exclusive  privileges. 
Consequently,  they  sought  to  broaden  the  first  half  of  the  proviso  to  in- 

7 “And  for  the  better  securing  the  Peace  of  the  Kingdome  be  it  further  enacted  and 
ordained  and  the  respective  Leiutenants  or  any  two  or  more  of  theire  Deputies  are 
hereby  enabled  & authorized  from  time  to  time  by  Warrant  under  theire  Hands  and 
Seales  to  employ  such  Person  or  Persons  as  they  shall  thinke  fitt  (of  which  a Com- 
missioned Officer  and  the  Constable  or  his  Deputy  or  the  Tythingman  or  in  the  ab- 
sence of  the  Constable  and  his  Deputy  and  Tythingman  some  other  Person  bearing 
Office  within  the  Parish  where  the  search  shall  be  shall  be  two)  to  search  for  and 
seize  all  Armes  in  the  custody  or  possession  of  any  person  or  persons  whom  the  said 
Leiutenants  or  any  two  or  more  of  theire  Deputies  shall  judge  dangerous  to  the 
Peace  of  the  Kingdome  and  to  secure  such  Armes  for  the  service  aforesaid  and  there- 
of from  time  to  time  to  give  Accounts  to  the  said  respective  Leiutenants  and  in  theire 
absence  as  aforesaid  or  otherwise  by  theire  directions  to  theire  Deputies  or  any  two 
or  more  of  them.”  14  Car.  II  c.  3,  Statutes  of  the  Realm , V.  360. 

8 Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords , 20  March  1661/62,  xi.  412. 

9 Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords , 17  April  1662,  xi.  431;  v.e.,  ibid.,  21  March 
1661/62,  xi.  413 ; 10  April  1662,  p.  4375  1 1 April,  p.  437;  14  April,  p.  439;  15 
April,  p.  4305  16  April,  p.  430. 

1 All  amendments  have  been  pieced  together  from  the  debates  reported  in  the  House 
of  Commons  and  the  House  of  Lords.  See  especially:  Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords, 
12  May  1662,  XI.  4553  Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons,  3 May  1662,  vni.  4203 
5 May,  p.  521. 

2 Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords,  17  April  1662,  xi.  431—4323  18  April,  p.  432; 
Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons , 18  April  1662,  vni.  409. 

3 V.,  e.g.,  Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons,  30  April  1662,  VIII.  417;  3 May,  p. 
418-419. 


1951]  Legislation  on  Writs  of  Assistance  341 

elude  more  than  the  cities  and  corporate  towns  of  the  Commoners.  They 
added  the  “Suburbs”  and  “Market  Townes,  and  houses  within  the  bills 
of  Mortality.”4  Then,  perhaps  for  clarity’s  sake,  they  added  this  clause: 
“where  it  shall  and  may  be  lawfull  to  search  in  the  night  time  by  Warrant 
as  aforesaid  if  the  Warrant  shall  so  direct  and  in  case  of  resistance  to  enter 
by  force.”5 

Instead  of  clearing  up  matters,  however,  the  clause  only  engendered 
further  doubts  and  debate.  This  added  clause  introduced  into  the  bill  for 
the  first  time  the  use  of  force  in  case  of  resistance  in  conducting  a search. 
By  explicitly  making  it  lawful  to  use  force  in  the  nighttime  the  question 
naturally  arose  “Whether,  in  case  of  Resistance  in  the  Day-time,  there 
was  sufficient  Power  given  by  the  Act  to  enter  into  any  House  to  make 
Search  for  Arms.  . . .”  The  question  was  given  over  to  a committee  to 
consider  and  prepare  a paragraph  authorizing  force  in  the  daytime  “if 
they  find  it  necessary.”6 

On  Monday,  the  next  calendar  day,  the  Committee  reported  they 
thought  it  was  necessary  and  submitted  this  clause  to  the  consideration  of 
the  House:  “And  that  in  all  places  and  houses  whatsoever  where  search  is 
to  be  made  as  aforesaid  it  shall  and  may  be  lawfull  in  case  of  resistance 
to  enter  by  force.  . . .”7  The  amendment  was  twice  read  and  agreed  to 
without  a recorded  vote.8  The  fact  that  the  Committee  and  House 
thought  this  explicit  clause  a necessary  addition  to  make  the  use  of  force 
in  the  daytime  lawful  may  be  an  indication  that  without  such  an  explicit 
clause  in  any  bill,  the  use  of  force  was  considered  unlawful;  or  it  may 
only  mean  that  as  force  had  been  authorized  for  a night  search,  it  was 
thought  better  for  this  bill,  also,  to  make  it  explicitly  lawful  in  the  day- 
time. 

The  House  of  Commons  then  began  a discussion  of  the  second  half  of 
the  proviso  sent  from  the  Peers  which  excluded  all  houses  of  the  Peers 
from  search  except  by  an  immediate  warrant  from  the  King.  Again  the 
Commons  balked  at  such  exclusive  privileges.  Various  alterations  were 
suggested  to  limit  the  exemption  to  the  actual  dwelling  houses  of  the 

4 The  wording  for  these  amendments  has  been  taken  from  the  Statutes  of  the  Realm , 
V.  360,  which  differs  from  the  account  in  the  Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons , 
e.g.,  3 May  1662,  vm.  420,  only  in  punctuation  and  capitalization. 

5 Idem,  ibid. 

6 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons , 3 May  1662,  vm.  420.  The  committee  con- 
sisted of  “Serjeant  Charlton,  Sir  Tho.  Meres,  Mr.  Coventry,  and  Sir  Thomas  Little- 
ton” Ibid. 

7 See  footnote  4 sufra. 

8 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons,  5 May  1662,  vm.  421. 


342  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

Peers  and  to  broaden  the  authority  under  which  search  could  be  made. 
The  proviso  was  finally  made  to  read 

Provided  that  no  such  Search  be  made  in  any  house  or  houses  between  Sun  set- 
ting and  Sun  rising  other  then  in  Cities  and  theire  Suburbs  and  Townes  Cor- 
porate Market  Townes  and  houses  within  the  bills  oj  Mortality  where  it  shall 
and  may  be  law  full  to  search  in  the  night  time  by  Warrant  as  aforesaid  if  the 
Warrant  shall  so  direct  and  in  case  of  resistance  to  enter  by  force  And  that  no 
dwelling  house  of  any  Peere  of  this  Realme  be  searched  by  vertue  of  this  Act 
but  by  immediate  Warrant  from  His  Majesty  under  his  Sign  Manual  or  in  the 
presence  of  the  Leiutenant  or  one  of  the  Deputy  Leiutenants  of  the  same  County 
or  Riding  And  that  in  all  places  and  houses  whatsoever  where  search  is  to  be 
made  as  aforesaid  it  shall  and  may  be  law  full  in  case  of  resistance  to  enter  by 
force.9 

There  are  many  possibilities  why  the  phrase  “by  Vertue  of  this  Act” 
was  added.  It  may  have  been  just  good  legislative  practice;  it  may  have 
meant  that  the  Commons  wanted  it  understood  that  the  houses  of  Peers 
could  be  subject  to  search  under  a particular  local  warrant;  it  may  have 
meant  that  the  Commons  were  conscious  of  the  bitter  fight  with  the 
Peers  about  a provision  for  search  that  had  shelved  the  bill  to  regulate 
printing;1  or  it  may  have  been  that  the  Commons  had  in  mind  general 
writs  of  assistance.  Perhaps  it  was  a combination  of  all  of  these  reasons. 
In  view  of  the  animosity  aroused  by  the  printing  bill,  it  would  be  natural, 
if  that  was  principally  in  the  minds  of  the  Commons.  In  the  absence  of 
any  explicit  mention  of  the  writs  of  assistance,  there  is  no  way  of  telling 
if  the  Commons  thought  of  them  at  all  at  this  time ; and  only  a considera- 
tion of  the  whole  session  of  Parliament  can  give  us  any  indication  as  to 
whether  the  Commons  considered  them  general  or  not. 

This  was  not  the  only  amendment  of  this  bill  debated  in  the  Commons,2 
but  it  is  the  only  one  that  throws  any  light  on  what  this  session  of  Parlia- 
ment thought  of  general  search  warrants,  and/or  writs  of  assistance.  By 
Saturday,  io  May,  the  Commons  had  completed  their  discussions  and 
sent  a request  to  the  House  of  Lords  for  a conference  on  the  bill.  It  was 


9 Statutes  of  the  Realm,  V.  360.  The  words  in  italics  (which  are  supplied)  are  the 
additions  of  the  House  of  Commons;  the  remainder  was  the  original  proviso  of  the 
House  of  Lords. 

1 See  infra. 

2 For  further  debate  see,  e.g.,  Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons , 6 May  1662,  vm. 
421—422;  7 May,  p.  423 ; 9 May,  p.  424,  and  supra.  One  of  the  amendments  offer- 
ing particular  difficulty  was  the  assessment  of  the  Peers;  cf.  ibid.,  9 May  1662,  vm. 
424. 


1951]  Legislation  on  Writs  of  Assistance  343 

granted  the  same  day  in  the  “Painted  Chamber.”3  Sergeant  Charlton 
principally  conducted  the  discussions  for  the  Commons  and  John,  Lord 
Rohartes,  lord  privy  seal,  for  the  Peers.4  On  the  following  Monday  a 
long  report  was  made  to  the  House  of  Lords  on  the  results  of  the  confer- 
ence. Among  other  things,  Sergeant  Charlton  in  defending  the  position  of 
the  Commons  had  advanced  the  argument  that  “ ‘The  Powers  that  were 
granted  in  this  Act  were  such  as  never  were  granted  by  Parliament.’  ”5 
While  the  power  of  search  was  not  mentioned  at  that  time,  it  is  well 
to  note  that  this  bill  was  considered  extraordinary.  Besides,  Sergeant 
Charlton  did  have  something  to  say  about  the  search  of  houses.  After  pre- 
senting the  amendments  adopted  by  the  Commons,6  he  had  given  these 
reasons  for  their  adoption: 

“He  said,  The  Commons  thought  the  Suburbs  equally  dangerous  as  Cities  and 
Market  Towns,  and  Houses  within  the  Bills  of  Mortality  as  Towns  Corporate. 
And  as  to  the  searching  of  the  House  of  any  Peer,  they  paid  so  much  Respect, 
as  to  have  it  done  in  the  Presence  of  Lieutenant  or  Deputy  Lieutenant,  being 
the  chief  Men  in  the  County.  The  Reason,  he  said,  was,  That  the  Houses  of 
Commoners  were  their  Castles  as  well  as  the  Lords  Houses,  and  could  not  be 
broken  open.  But  they  were  willing  to  part  with  their  Privilege,  though  they 
had  not  many  left,  for  the  Public  Safety. 

“The  Lords,  he  said,  had  greater  Estates,  and  more  to  lose,  than  the  Com- 
mons; and  therefore  were  more  concerned  in  the  Public  Safety;  so  as,  if  Arms 
were  laid  up  in  the  House  of  a Peer,  to  stay  until  the  King’s  Sign  Manual  com- 
eth,  might  lose  the  Opportunity  of  taking  the  Arms,  or  preventing  of  a Design. 

“Besides,  the  Lords  had  divers  Houses  where  they  did  not  reside,  And  if  there 
were  any  Sanctuary  known  exempt  from  searching,  it  is  probable  such  Places 
might  be  made  dangerous  Repositories;  and  yet  they  pay  so  much  Respect  to  the 
Lords,  as  to  have  such  Places  searched  in  the  Presence  of  such  unto  whom  the 
Safety  of  the  County  is  committed.”7 

Beneath  a certain  amount  of  parliamentary  deference  to  the  Lords,  it 
is  clear  that  the  Commons  did  not  much  like  the  houses  of  the  Peers  to  be 

3 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons , io  May  1662,  vm.  425;  Journals  of  the 
House  of  Lords , 10  May  1662,  XI.  453. 

4 Stock,  of.  cit.,  1.  292. 

5 Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords , 12  May  1662,  XI.  455. 

6 The  word  “Lord”  was  also  to  be  left  out  of  the  “4th  Line.”  It  is  difficult  to  see 
where  this  word  would  belong,  except  perhaps  before  “Leiutenant,”  a correction 
adopted  in  other  sections  of  the  bill,  but  may  have  been  inserted  here  as  this  clause 
came  from  the  Commons.  Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords,  12  May  1662,  XI.  455; 
cf.  ibid.,  p.  453. 

7 Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords,  12  May  1662,  XI.  455. 


344  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

completely  exempt  from  the  search  warrant  provided  in  the  bill.  It  also 
seems  clear  that  they  considered  their  houses  generally  free  from  forcible 
search,  a privilege  they  surrendered  at  this  time  only  in  the  interests  of  the 
“Public  Safety.” 

Much  the  same  opinion  of  the  security  of  their  Houses  was  presented 
by  the  Speaker  of  the  Commons  at  the  end  of  the  session  when  he  was 
presenting  a revenue  bill  for  the  King’s  approval. 

“In  the  next  Place,  [he  said]  according  to  your  Majesty’s  Commands,  we 
have  surveyed  the  wasted  Revenue  of  the  Crown;  and,  in  Pursuance  of  our 
Promises,  do  humbly  propound  unto  Your  Majesty  a fair  Addition.  We  consid- 
ered, that  great  Part  of  Your  Majesty’s  Revenue  is  but  for  Life;  and  both  that, 
and  also  Part  of  the  rest,  depends  upon  the  Peace,  the  Trade,  and  Traffic  of  the 
Nation,  and  therefore  may  be  much  impaired  by  Wars  with  Foreign  Nations. 
This  put  us  upon  the  Search  of  something  that  might  arise  within  our  own  Walls, 
and  not  be  subject  to  such  Contingencies.  We  pitched  our  Thoughts  at  last  upon 
those  Places  where  we  enjoy  our  greatest  Comforts  and  Securities,  our  Dwelling 
houses;  and,  considering  even  that  Security  is  secured  unto  us  by  Your  Majesty’s 
Vigilance  and  Care  in  the  Government;  we  have  prepared  a Bill,  whereby  we 
desire  it  may  be  enacted,  That  all  Houses  in  this  Kingdom,  which  are  worth  in 
Yearly  Value  above  Twenty  Shillings,  and  not  inhabited  by  Almsmen,  may  pay 
unto  Your  Majesty,  Your  Heirs  and  Successors,  Two  Shillings  Yearly  for  every 
Chimney-hearth  in  each  House  for  ever.”8 

Allowing  for  a certain  amount  of  sheer  debate,  the  Commons  seem  to 
have  been  quite  conscious  of  the  implications  of  a general  search  warrant, 
and  equally  conscious  that  it  was  to  be  rarely  granted.  Keeping  in  mind 
the  report  of  the  King  at  Christmas  time  and  how  impressed  the  com- 
mittee of  the  Commons  had  been  with  the  “real  Danger”  of  a revolution, 
one  might  well  wonder  if  anything  less  than  a threat  to  their  peace — and 
hence  also  to  their  economy — would  have  forced  the  Commons  to  grant 
so  broad  a privilege.  Even  if  this  were  not  true,  one  could  still  question 
whether  the  Commons,  or  the  Lords,  after  so  much  discussion  on  the 
right  of  search,  would  have  parted  with  this  privilege  without  any  re- 
ported discussion,  as  would  be  the  case  if  the  writ  of  assistance  in  the  bill 
to  prevent  frauds  was  understood  to  be  a general  search  warrant  with 
the  right  of  forcible  entry.  The  more  so,  if  we  look  further  and  see  how 
tenacious  the  Lords  continued  to  be  in  protecting  their  houses  from  search. 

In  debating  the  amendments  brought  up  from  the  House  of  Commons, 
the  Lords  were  willing  to  make  some  concession  about  the  search  of  their 
houses  but  were  not  willing  to  go  as  far  as  the  Commons  wanted  to  push 


8 Ibid. , 19  May  1662,  xi.  471. 


1951]  Legislation  on  W rits  of  Assistance  345 

them.  The  Commons  had  proposed  that  the  presence  of  the  lieutenant 
or  deputy  lieutenant  of  the  county  be  sufficient  warrant  for  the  search. 
The  Lords  held  to  their  original  intention  of  having  the  warrant  come 
from  the  King  and  made  the  amendment  read:  “And  that  no  dwelling 
house  of  any  Peere  of  this  Realme  be  searched  by  vertue  of  this  Act  but 
by  immediate  Warrant  from  His  Majesty  under  His  Sign  Manual  or  by 
other  Directions  from  His  Majesty,  and  either  Way  in  the  Presence  of  a 
Lieutenant  or  Deputy  Lieutenant.”9 

With  this  and  other  amendments,  a conference  was  arranged  and  the 
bill  returned  to  the  House  of  Commons.1 

On  the  next  day,  the  King  sent  a message  warning  Parliament  that 
he  was  leaving  in  a couple  of  days  and  wished  them  to  finish  the  bills  on 
the  militia  and  printing  and  have  them  ready  for  his  signature. 

The  House  of  Commons  in  debating  the  amendments  they  had  re- 
ceived from  the  House  of  Lords  took  full  advantage  of  the  concession 
granted  by  the  Lords  by  retaining  the  clause  “other  Directions  from  His 
Majesty”  but  on  the  essential  point  of  making  the  houses  of  the  Peers 
subject  to  search  by  the  lieutenants  and  deputy  lieutenants,  they  held  their 
ground.2  They  asked  the  Lords  for  a conference  and  returned  the  bill.3 

The  Lords  must  have  realized  they  had  been  trapped  for  in  their  de- 
bate they  refused  to  agree  to  this  new  amendment  of  the  Commons  but 
went  back  to  the  reading  as  it  was  first  amended  by  the  House  of  Com- 
mons.4 This  seems  to  have  ended  the  dispute  on  the  right  of  search,  al- 
though the  bill  went  through  two  more  conferences5  before  the  Lords 
granted  the  wishes  of  the  Commons  on  the  power  of  lieutenants  and  depu- 
ties to  fix  penalties,  and  the  Commons  reluctantly  agreed  to  the  Lords’ 
provision  on  the  assessment  of  Peers. 

The  militia  bill  had  been  passed  under  the  pressure  of  closing  time  and 
there  had  been  a good  deal  of  discussion  about  matters  that  had  nothing  to 
do  with  the  right  of  search.  But  from  those  passages  which  do,  it  is  quite 
clear  that  the  Peers  were  very  tenacious  of  their  immunity  from  forcible 
search  and  even  the  Commons  recognized  it  as  one  of  the  few  privileges 
they  still  possessed.  Apparently  it  was  something  to  be  rarely  granted  and 

9 Ibid.,  13  May  1662,  XI.  4575  cf.  ibid.,  14  May  1662,  XI.  459-460. 

x Ibid.,  14  May  1662,  xi.  459-460  j Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons,  14  May 
1662,  viii.  429. 

2 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons,  16  May  1662,  viii.  431. 

3 Ibid Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords,  16  May  1662,  xi.  463 ; cf.  ibid.,  p.  464. 

4 Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords,  16  May  1662,  xi.  463  $ cf.  ibid.,  p.  464. 

5 Ibid.,  1 6 May  1662,  xi.  4645  17  May,  pp.  464-465,  4665  Journals  of  the  House 
of  Commons,  17  May  1662,  viii.  432,  432—433. 


1 c 


346  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

then  only  in  such  an  emergency  as  would  justify  the  militia  bill  itself. 

The  same  attitude  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Lords  and  the  House  of 
Commons  is  evident  in  the  discussion  of  the  bill  to  regulate  printing.6  It 
was  in  early  July,  1661,  that  the  House  of  Commons  “taking  Notice, 
that  several  traiterous,  schismatical,  and  scandalous  Pamphlets  have  been 
printed  and  published  since  his  Majesty’s  happy  Restauration”  ordered  a 
bill  to  be  prepared  and  brought  in  “for  the  Regulation  of  Printing;  and 
for  the  calling  in  of  all  seditious  and  schismatical  Books  and  Pamphlets, 
in  whose  Hands  soever  they  be.”7  It  is  not  known  what  happened  to  this 
committee  and  bill  but  towards  the  end  of  the  month  Sir  Heneage  Finch, 
the  solicitor  general,  was  told  to  “bring  in  a Bill  to  impower  his  Majesty 
to  regulate  the  Press,  till  it  be  otherwise  provided  for.”8  The  very  next 
day  the  bill  was  read  for  the  first  and  second  time  and  given  to  a committee 
of  whom  Sir  Heneage  Finch  and  Sergeant  Charlton  were  both  members.9 
Several  amendments  were  reported  and  adopted  and  the  bill  was  ordered 
to  be  engrossed.1  On  27  July  the  bill  was  read  again  and  passed2  and 
sent  up  to  the  House  of  Lords.3 

Parliament  was  to  adjourn  in  about  three  days  which  left  the  Lords 
little  time  if  the  bill  was  to  be  passed  at  this  session.  On  the  same  day  it  was 
received,  the  bill  was  read  the  first  and  second  times  and  given  to  a com- 
mittee.4 The  committee  had  some  alterations  to  make,  one  of  which  was 
quite  important:  the  Lords  wanted  their  houses  exempt  from  search.5 

The  Commons  in  turn  could  not  agree  to  this  amendment  and  asked 
for  a conference  with  the  Lords  about  it.6  Among  others,  Sir  Heneage 
Finch  was  asked  to  prepare  for  the  conference  the  reasons  of  the  Com- 
mons for  their  refusal.  In  the  first  place,  he  reported  to  an  agreeing 
House,  if  this  exception  were  allowed,  the  bill  could  not  prevent  the  gen- 
eral “Mischief”;  because  it  was  quite  possible  that  the  crime  envisioned 

6 “An  Act  for  preventing'  the  frequent  Abuses  in  printing  seditious  treasonable  and 
unlicensed  Bookes  and  Pamphlets  and  for  regulating  of  Printing  and  Printing  Press- 
es,” 14  Car.  II  c.  33,  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  V.  428-433. 

7 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons , 3 July  1661,  vm.  288. 

8 Ibid.,  25  July  1661,  vm.  312. 

9 Ibid.,  26  July  1 661,  vm.  313. 

1 Ibid. 

2 Ibid.,  27  July  1661,  vm.  314. 

3 Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords,  27  July  1661,  XI.  323. 

4 Ibid.,  27  July  1 661,  XI.  324. 

6 Ibid.,  29  July  1661,  XI.  3255  Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons,  29  July  1661, 
VIII.  315. 

6 Ibid. 


Wi 


f. 


P: 


tj 

ti 


1 95 1 ] Legislation  on  W rits  of  Assistance  3 47 

by  the  bill  would  be  attempted  by  the  servants  of  the  Lords  without  their 
knowledge,  especially  in  their  absence.  Besides,  for  books  of  treason  and 
sedition,  there  should  be  no  sanctuary.  Further,  there  was  danger  from 
books  “tending  to  the  Overthrow  of  the  Religion  established”  if  there 
were  any  “Privileged  Place.”  Again  (and  more  importantly  for  our  dis- 
cussion) : “4.  All  Houses,  as  well  of  Commons  as  Peers,  are  equally  the 
Castles  and  Proprieties  of  the  Owners:  And  therefore  if  all  the  Gentry 
of  England  submit  their  Houses  for  publick  Safety,  it  would  look  as  if  we 
were  prodigal  of  the  Liberty  of  the  Gentry,  if  we  admit  this  Exception.”7 

Here,  then,  we  have  both  houses  of  Parliament  conscious  of  a general 
search  provision:  the  Lords  strenuously  opposing  any  search  of  their 
houses  under  such  blanket  authority;  and  the  Commons  conscious  of  the 
concession  but  claiming  all  houses  should  be  equal  in  view  of  the  “pub- 
lick  Safety.”  It  was  the  same  reason  the  Commons  later  used  to  justify 
the  general  search  warrant  in  the  militia  bill,  and  it  looks  as  if  the  same 
men  were  connected  with  it:  Sergeant  Charlton  and  Sir  Heneage  Finch. 

The  House  of  Commons  asked  for  and  the  Lords  agreed  to  a confer- 
ence to  discuss  the  amendment  excluding  the  houses  of  Peers  from  search.8 
It  was  at  this  conference  that  the  Commons  presented  their  reasons 
against  the  amendment  granting  exemption.  The  Lords  reported  the 
reasons  of  the  Commons  back  to  their  own  House  and  again  took  up  the 
debate. 

But  the  Lords  not  agreeing  to  the  Reasons  of  the  House  of  Commons;  a Proviso 
was  offered,  as  an  Expedient  concerning  the  searching  of  the  Houses  of  Peers, 
by  Order  of  Six  of  the  Privy  Council,  and  not  otherwise;  which,  being  read,  was 
agreed  to,  and  ordered  to  be  offered  to  the  House  of  Commons  at  a Free  Con- 
ference; with  this  Declaration  and  Caution,  Not  to  forsake  their  Lordships  First 
Amendment,  but  to  be  in  Force  unless  the  House  of  Commons  do  agree  to  this 
Proviso.9 

The  Lords  requested  another  conference  with  the  Commons  to  pre- 
sent this  proviso  concerning  the  search  of  the  houses  of  Peers  “by  Order 
of  Six  of  the  Privy  Council.”1  The  conference  was  granted  and  the  Com- 
mons took  into  consideration  this  new  proviso  of  the  Lords.  It  is  not  known 
exactly  how  this  proviso  read,  but  judging  from  the  action  of  the  Com- 
mons it  does  not  seem  to  have  been  much  of  a concession.  The  debate  in 
the  Commons  seems  to  have  been  quite  short: 

7 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons , 29  July  1661,  vm.  315. 

8 Journals  of  the  House  of  Lordsy  29  July  1661,  XI.  325. 

9 Ibid.,  29  July  1661,  XI.  326.  1 Ibid. 


348  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

And  the  Proviso  was  twice  read. 

And  the  Question  being  put,  That  this  House  doth  agree  to  the  said  Proviso; 

It  passed  in  the  Negative. 

The  Question  being  put,  to  adhere  to  the  Bill  for  regulating  unlicensed  and 
disorderly  Printing; 

It  was  resolved  in  the  Affirmative.2 

Another  conference  was  desired  to  return  the  bill  with  this  negative 
note  to  the  House  of  Lords.3 4  By  this  time  (the  third  conference  on  the 
same  day  on  the  same  bill  and  same  amendment)  tempers  seem  to  have 
worn  thin.  Sir  Heneage  Finch,  the  solicitor  general,  told  the  conference 
that  the  Commons  had  considered  the  proviso  and  “ ‘they  find  not  Rea- 
son enough  to  consent  to  the  same:  And  Mr.  Solicitor  told  their  Lord- 
ships,  he  had  only  Power  to  adhere,  and  to  receive  no  further  Reasons.5  5,4 
This  refusal  to  entertain  any  more  debate  at  a free  conference  seems  to 
have  been  the  last  straw.  The  Lords  resolved  to  have  another  conference 
with  the  House  of  Commons  and  return  the  bill 

and  to  let  them  know,  “that  their  Lordships  do  adhere  to  their  Proviso,  and  do 
forbear  to  give  any  further  Reasons  (though  much  could  be  said),  because  it  was 
delivered  at  a Free  Conference,  that  the  Commons  would  hear  no  further  Rea- 
sons; which  their  Lordships  conceive  is  contrary  to  the  Proceedings  and  Liberty 
of  Parliament  in  Transacting  Businesses  between  the  Two  Houses.”5 

The  Commons  granted  the  conference  (number  four)  as  requested, 
and  the  solicitor  general  and  lord  privy  seal  met  again.  The  message  from 
the  House  of  Lords  was  delivered,  and  the  bill  concerning  printing  was 
offered  “ £to  Mr.  Solicitor,  who  refused  to  receive  it;  and  so  his  Lord- 
ship  left  it  upon  the  Table  in  the  Painted  Chamber,  and  came  away.’  ”6 

Apparently  the  bill  was  now  neither  in  the  House  of  Lords  nor  in  the 
House  of  Commons,  but  was  stranded  on  a table  in  the  “Painted  Cham- 
ber.” 

The  Commons  did  one  thing  more,  they  passed  a resolution  of  com- 
mendation for  those  who  had  represented  them: 

Resolved , That  the  Persons,  who  managed  the  Conference  with  the  Lords 
upon  the  Bill  for  regulating  unlicensed  and  disorderly  Printing,  have  done  well 
in  the  Managing  thereof,  and  leaving  the  Bill  with  the  Lords:  And  that  Mr. 
Sollicitor-General,  who  was  chiefly  intrusted  with  this  Business,  have  the  Thanks 
of  the  House  returned  to  him  for  his  Care  and  discreet  Carriage  therein. 

2 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons , 29  July  1661,  vm.  315. 

3 Ibid.;  Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords , 29  July  1661,  xi.  326. 

4 Journals  of  the  House  of  Lordsy  29  July  1661,  XI.  327.  5 Ibid.  6 Ibid. 


1951]  Legislation  on  W rits  of  Assistance  3 49 

And  Mr.  Speaker  did  accordingly  return  Mr.  Sollicitor  the  Thanks  of  the 
House.7 

Allowing  a certain  amount  of  this  fight  to  blue  Monday,  a summer 
day,  the  end  of  the  session,  and  Parliamentary  privilege,  it  is  still  obvious 
that  the  Lords  were  in  no  mood  to  grant  a general  searching  permit  for 
their  houses  even  for  the  “publick  Safety.”  The  Commons,  too,  were  cer- 
tainly conscious  of  their  privileges  and  the  criticism  of  their  constituents 
even  though  they  may  have  been  more  ready  to  part  with  them.  Search 
warrants  were  not  to  be  thrown  around  lightly. 

This  little  dispute  hurt  all  progress  on  the  printing  bill.  Of  course,  noth- 
ing was  done  before  the  summer  recess  which  began  the  very  next  day. 
Parliament  reassembled  on  20  November  1 66 1 , and  about  three  weeks 
later  the  worried  House  of  Commons  sent  up  a message  to  the  Lords  to 
put  them  in  mind  of  the  printing  bill.8  The  Lords  ordered  the  attorney 
general  to  bring  in  a new  bill  after  the  Christmas  recess.9  On  16  January 
the  bill  was  read  for  the  first  time  in  the  House  of  Lords.1  The  next  day 
it  was  read  again  and  buried  in  a committee.2  It  was  not  until  22  April 
that  it  was  reported  with  amendments  and  alterations.3  Within  a week 
it  was  passed  and  sent  to  the  House  of  Commons.4  This  printing  bill  con- 
tained a long  article  on  the  search  of  houses  which  eventually  was  to  read 
this  way: 

And  for  the  better  discovering  of  printing  in  Corners  without  Licence  Be  it 
further  enacted  by  the  Authority  aforesaid  That  one  or  more  of  the  Messengers 
of  his  Majesties  Chamber  by  Warrant  under  His  Majesties  principal  Secretares 
of  State  or  the  Master  and  Wardens  of  the  said  Company  of  Stationers  or  any 
of  them  shall  have  power  and  authority  with  a Constable  to  take  unto  them  such 
assistance  as  they  shall  thinke  needfull  and  att  what  time  they  shall  thinke  fitt 
to  search  all  Houses  and  Shops  where  they  shall  knowre  or  upon  some  probable 
reason  suspect  any  Books  or  Papers  to  be  printed  bound  or  stitched  especially 
Printing  Houses  Booksellers  Shops  and  Warehouses  and  Bookbinders  Houses  and 
Shops  and  to  view  there  what  is  imprinting  binding  or  stitching  and  to  examine 
whether  the  same  be  licensed  and  to  demand  a sight  of  the  said  License  and  if 

7 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons,  29  July  1661,  vm.  316. 

8 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons,  16  December  1661,  vm.  3335  Journals  of  the 
House  of  Lords,  16  December  1661,  xi.  351. 

9 Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords,  17  December  1661,  xi.  353. 

1 Ibid.,  1 6 January  1 661/ 62,  XI.  365. 

2 Ibid.,  1 7 January  1 661/ 62,  XI.  366. 

3 Ibid.,  22  April  1662,  XI.  435. 

4 Ibid.,  28  April  1662,  XI.  439. 


35°  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

the  said  Booke  soe  imprinting  binding  or  stitching  shall  not  be  licensed  then  to 
seize  upon  so  much  thereof  as  shall  be  found  imprinted  together  with  the  several 
Offenders  and  to  bring  them  before  one  or  more  Justices  of  the  Peace  whoe  are 
hereby  authorized  and  required  to  commit  such  Offenders  to  Prison  there  to  re- 
maine  untill  they  shall  be  tried  and  acquitted  or  convicted  and  punished  for  the 
said  Offences.  . . .5 

The  bill  also  contained  an  important  proviso  on  the  search  of  the  houses 
of  Peers.  As  it  came  from  the  House  of  Lords  it  read: 

Provided  alwaies  That  no  search  shall  be  att  any  time  made  in  the  House  or 
Houses  of  any  the  Peers  of  this  Realm  But  by  special  Warrant  from  the  Kings 
Majestie  under  His  Sign  Manual  or  under  the  Hand  of  one  or  both  of  His  Maj- 
esties principal  Secretaries  of  State  or  for  any  other  Books  then  such  as  are  in 
printing  or  shall  be  printed  after  the  Tenth  of  June  One  thousand  six  hundred 
sixty  two  Any  thing  in  this  Act  to  the  contrary  thereof  in  any  wise  notwithstand- 
ing6 

In  the  House  of  Commons  the  bill  was  read  on  2 May7  and  on  the  fol- 
lowing day  given  to  a committee.8  About  the  middle  of  the  month  the  bill 
was  reported  with  amendments  and  provisos9  and  on  the  next  calendar 
day  it  was  debated  by  the  Commons.1  Just  at  this  time  the  Lords  sent  two 
reminders  of  the  bill  to  the  lower  House.2 

The  Commons  had  something  very  particular  to  say  about  the  proviso 
the  Lords  had  put  in  on  searching  the  houses  of  Peers.  Perhaps  the  Com- 
mons were  mindful  of  the  obstinacy  the  Lords  had  shown  on  the  previous 
bill  which  had  died  of  just  such  a proviso.  Perhaps  they  were  also  mindful 
of  their  own  former  argument  that  “All  Houses,  as  well  of  Commons  as 
Peers,  are  equally  the  Castles  and  Proprieties  of  the  Owners,”3  for  they 
let  the  proviso  stand.  But  they  added  a very  significant  amendment  in- 
cluding in  the  exemption  from  search  the  houses  of  all  those  who  were 

6 14  Car.  II  c.  33,  Statutes  of  the  Realm , V.  432.  This  article  seems  to  have  been 
amended  in  the  House  of  Commons  as  a section  was  annexed  to  the  original  act  in  a 
separate  schedule.  Quite  possibly  it  was  one  of  the  amendments  discussed  on  x 9 May 
1662.  Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons , 19  May  1662,  vm.  434. 

6 14  Car.  II  c.  33,  Statutes  of  the  Realm}  V.  433.  The  original  and  the  amendment 
have  been  dissected  through  the  Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons , 19  May  1662, 
vm.  434-435. 

7 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons , 2 May  1662,  vm.  41  7. 

8 Ibid.,  3 May  1 662,  VIII.  418. 

9 Ibid.y  17  May  1662,  VIII.  434. 

1 Ibid.)  19  May  1662,  VIII.  434. 

2 Ibid.;  Journals  of  the  House  of  Lordsy  19  May  1662,  XI.  468. 

3 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commonsy  29  July  1661,  vm.  3155  cf.  sufra}  p.  47. 


1951]  Legislation  on  Writs  of  Assistance  3 5 1 

not  connected  with  the  printing  trade.  The  proviso  was  eventually  made 
to  read: 

Provided  alwaies  That  no  search  shall  be  att  any  time  made  in  the  House  or 
Houses  of  any  the  Peers  of  this  Realm  or  of  any  other  person  or  persons  not  be- 
ing free  of  or  using  any  of  the  Trades  in  this  Act  before  mentioned  but  by  special 
Warrant  from  the  Kings  Majestie  under  His  Sign  Manual  or  under  the  Hand 
of  one  or  both  of  His  Majesties  principal  Secretaries  of  State  or  for  any  other 
Books  then  such  as  are  in  printing  or  shall  be  printed  after  the  Tenth  of  June 
One  thousand  six  hundred  sixty  two  Any  thing  in  this  Act  to  the  contrary  thereof 
in  any  wise  notwithstanding4 

Another  proviso  which  gives  some  indication  of  the  temper  of  Parlia- 
ment was  added  to  limit  the  duration  of  the  bill  to  two  years.5  It  seemed 
that  “publick  Safety”  could  be  carried  just  so  far. 

The  bill  went  back  to  the  Lords6  and  all  the  amendments  were  agreed 
to  with  slight  changes.7  Apparently  the  Lords  were  willing  to  consider 
the  houses  of  the  Commoners  in  the  same  light  as  their  own  and  were 
only  adamant  when  their  houses  were  threatened  with  a general  search. 
The  same  day  another  conference  was  held,  the  slight  changes  agreed  to 
by  the  Commons,8  and  the  bill  was  presented  to  the  King.9 

The  real  significance  in  the  reported  discussions  of  these  bills  on  militia 
and  printing  is  the  insistence  of  the  Peers  on  exempting  their  houses  from 
any  general  search  provisions.  Perhaps  a certain  amount  should  be  al- 
lowed for  feudal  tradition  in  the  discussion  on  the  militia  bill;  perhaps, 
too,  a certain  amount  should  be  allowed  to  the  dissident  and  Catholic  ele- 
ments for  the  protection  of  their  libraries  in  the  discussions  of  the  printing 
bill.  But  even  with  these  allowances,  there  seems  to  have  been  a genuine 
reluctance  to  grant  general  powers  of  search  which  was  obstinate  enough 
to  kill  one  bill  and  threaten  two  others.  It  is  doubtful  if  feudal  tradition 
or  the  dissident  party  could  have  been  this  strong. 

4 14  Car.  II  c.  33,  Statutes  of  the  Realmy  V.  433.  It  would  seem  from  the  Journals 
of  the  House  of  Commons  that  the  clause  was  inserted  at  the  end  of  the  proviso,  but 
it  is  clear  only  from  its  present  position  in  the  Statutes  of  the  Realm.  Journals  of  the 
House  of  Commons , 19  May  1662,  vm.  435. 

5 14  Car.  II  c.  33,  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  v.  433  ; Journals  of  the  House  of  Commonsy 
19  May  1662,  viii.  435. 

6 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons , 19  May  1662,  vm.  435}  Journals  of  the 
House  of  Lordsy  19  May  1662,  xi.  468. 

7 Journals  of  the  House  of  Lordsy  19  May  1662,  xi.  469. 

8 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons,  19  May  1662,  vm.  435-436}  Journals  of  the 
House  of  Lords , 19  May  1662,  xi.  470. 

9 Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords , 19  May  1662,  xi.  472. 


352  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

This  insistence  on  exemption  is  congruous  with  the  bill  “for  preventing 
Frauds  and  regulating  Abuses”  only  if  the  writ  of  assistance  mentioned 
in  that  bill  is  understood  in  the  particular  sense  of  12  Car.  II  c.  19.  If  the 
writ  of  assistance  as  passed  by  this  Parliament  was  understood  to  be  a 
general  writ,  it  is  too  difficult  to  explain  the  silence  of  the  Peers — and  even 
of  the  Commons — on  allowing  such  a general  search  warrant.  They 
were  too  vociferous  on  the  militia  and  printing  bills  to  imagine  they  would 
keep  quiet  on  any  bill,  if  they  understood  that  it  contained  a general  search 
warrant.  It  may  have  been  passed,  but  it  certainly  would  have  been  dis- 
cussed. General  search  warrants  seem  to  have  been  too  solidly  abhorred 
to  pass  without  some  voice  being  raised.  Even  the  religious  dissenters — if 
we  owe  them  anything  for  the  bill  on  printing — would  have  objected  to 
a general  search  warrant  just  to  be  consistent  and  to  conceal  the  supposed 
reason  of  their  objection  to  the  printing  bill.  In  the  absence  of  any  objec- 
tion at  all  to  the  writ  of  assistance  in  the  bill  “for  preventing  Frauds  and 
regulating  Abuses”  in  the  light  of  the  insistence  of  the  Peers  and  even  of 
the  Commons  on  exemption  from  any  general  search,  it  seems  strongly 
probable  that  the  writ  of  assistance  was  understood  to  be  a particular  writ 
and  not  a general  one. 


“An  Act  for  'preventing  Frauds  and  regulating 
Abuses  in  the  Plantation  Trade ” 

7 & 8 Gul.  Ill  c.  22 
1696 

The  third  and  last  act1  which  was  always  introduced  in  American 

1 “An  Act  for  explaining  a Clause  in  an  Act  made  at  the  Parliament  begun  and 
holden  at  Westminster  the  Two  and  twentieth  of  November  in  the  Seventh  Year  of 
the  Reign  of  our  Sovereign  Lord  King  William  the  Third  intituled  An  Act  for  the 
better  Security  of  His  Majesties  Royal  Person  and  Government,”  1 Ann.  c.  2, 
Statutes  of  the  Realm , vm.  5-6,  also  mentions  writs  of  assistance  but  only  as  exist- 
ing: 

“And  be  it  further  enacted  by  the  Authority  aforesaid  That  no  Commission  of  As- 
sociation Writ  of  Admittance  of  Si  no  omnes  Original  Writ  Writ  of  Nisi  prius 
Writ  of  Assistance  nor  any  Commission  Process  or  Proceedings  whatsoever  in  or 
issuing  out  of  any  Court  of  Equity  nor  any  Process  or  Proceeding  upon  any  Office 
or  Inquisition  nor  any  Writ  of  Certiorari  or  Habeas  Corpus  in  any  Matter  or  Cause 
either  Criminal  or  Civil  nor  any  Writ  of  Attachment  or  Process  for  Contempt  nor 
any  Commission  of  Delegacy  or  Review  for  any  Matters  Ecclesiastical  Testamentary 
or  Maritime  or  any  Process  thereupon  shall  be  determined  abated  or  discontinued 
by  the  Demise  of  the  said  late  King  but  all  and  every  such  Writ  Commission  Process 
and  Proceedings  shall  be  and  are  hereby  revived  and  continued  and  shall  be  in  full 
Force  and  Vertue  and  shall  and  may  be  proceeded  upon  as  if  His  late  Majesty  were 
living  nor  hereafter  by  the  Demise  of  Her  present  Majesty  or  any  King  or  Queen 


1951]  Legislation  on  Writs  of  Assistance  353 

colonial  discussions  of  the  legality  of  writs  of  assistance  was  “An  Act  for 
preventing  Frauds  and  regulating  Abuses  in  the  Plantation  Trade.”2 
Designed  as  a more  direct  extension  of  the  mercantile  system  and  navi- 
gation laws  to  the  American  colonies  and  customs  service,  the  act  is 
brought  into  the  present  discussion  on  writs  of  assistance  by  its  explicit 
mention  of  14  Car.  II  c.  11,3  the  act  discussed  in  the  previous  section. 
The  clause  which  gives  particular  concern  is  as  follows: 

And  for  the  more  effectuall  preventing  of  Frauds  and  regulating  Abuses  in 
the  Plantation  Trade  in  America  Bee  itt  further  enacted  by  the  Authority 
aforesaid  That  all  Shipps  comeing  into  or  goeing  out  of  any  of  the  said  Planta- 
tions and  ladeing  or  unladeing  any  Goods  or  Commodities  whether  the  same  bee 
His  Majesties  Shipps  of  Warr  or  Merchants  Shipps  and  the  Masters  and  Com- 
manders thereof  and  their  Ladings  shall  bee  subject  and  lyable  to  the  same  Rules 
Visitations  Searches  Penalties  and  Forfeitures  as  to  the  entring  lading  or  dis- 
chargeing  theire  respective  Shipps  and  Ladings  as  Shipps  and  their  Ladings  and 
the  Commanders  and  Masters  of  Shipps  are  subject  and  lyable  unto  in  this  King- 
dome  by  vertue  of  an  Act  of  Parliament  made  in  the  Fourteenth  Yeare  of  the 
Reigne  of  King  Charles  the  Second  intituled  An  Act  for  preventing  Frauds  and 
regulating  Abuses  in  His  Majesties  Customes  And  that  the  Officers  for  collect- 
ing and  manageing  His  Majesties  Revenue  and  inspecting  the  Plantation  Trade 
in  any  of  the  said  Plantations  shall  have  the  same  Powers  and  Authorities  for 
visiting  and  searching  of  Shipps  and  takeing  their  Entries  and  for  seizing  and 
secureing  or  bringing  on  Shoare  any  of  the  Goods  prohibited  to  bee  imported 
or  exported  into  or  out  of  any  the  said  Plantations  or  for  which  any  Duties  are 
payable  or  ought  to  have  beene  paid  by  any  of  the  before  menconed  Acts  as  are 
provided  for  the  Officers  of  the  Customes  in  England  by  the  said  last  mentioned 

of  this  Realm  shall  any  Commission  of  Assize  Oyer  and  Terminer  General  Gaol 
Delivery  or  of  Association  Writ  of  Admittance  Writ  of  Si  non  omnes  Writ  of  Assist- 
ance or  Commission  of  the  Peace  be  determined  But  every  such  Commission  and 
Writ  shall  be  and  continue  in  full  Force  and  Vertue  for  the  Space  of  Six  Months 
next  ensuing  notwithstanding  any  such  Demise  unless  superseded  and  determined  by 
Her  Majesty  Her  Heirs  or  Successors  and  also  no  Original  Writ  Writ  of  Nisi  Prius 
Commission  Process  or  Proceedings  whatsoever  in  or  issuing  out  of  any  Court  of 
Equity  nor  any  Process  or  Proceeding  upon  any  Office  or  Inquisition  nor  any  Writ 
of  Certiorari  or  Habeas  Corpus  in  any  Matter  or  Cause  either  Criminal  or  Civil 
nor  any  Writ  of  Attachment  or  Process  for  Contempt  nor  any  Commission  of  Dele- 
gacy or  Review  for  any  Matters  Ecclesiastical  Testamentary  or  Maritime  or  any 
Process  thereupon  shall  be  determined  abated  or  discontinued  by  the  Demise  of  Her 
Majesty  or  any  King  or  Queen  of  this  Realm  But  every  such  Writ  Commission  Proc- 
ess and  Proceeding  shall  remain  in  full  force  and  vertue  to  be  proceeded  upon  as  if 
Her  Majesty  or  such  other  King  or  Queen  had  lived  notwithstanding  any  such 
Death  or  Demise,”  ibid.,  p.  6. 

2 7 & 8 Gul.  Ill  c.  22,  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  vn.  103— 107. 

3 “An  Act  for  preventing  Frauds  and  regulating  Abuses  in  his  Majesties  Customes,” 
ibid.,  v.  393—3975  cf.  preceding  section. 


354  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

Act  made  in  the  Fourteenth  Yeare  of  the  Reigne  of  King  Charles  the  Second 
and  alsoe  to  enter  Houses  or  Warehouses  to  search  for  and  seize  any  such  Goods 
And  that  all  the  Wharfingers  and  Owners  of  Keys  and  Wharfes  or  any  Lighter- 
men Bargemen  Watermen  Porters  or  other  Persons  assisting  in  the  Conveyance 
Concealment  or  Rescue  of  any  of  the  said  Goods  or  in  the  hindering  or  resistance 
of  any  of  the  said  Officers  in  the  Performance  of  their  Duty  and  the  Boates 
Barges  Lighters  or  other  Vessells  imployed  in  the  Conveyance  of  such  Goods  shall 
bee  subject  to  the  like  Paines  and  Penalties  as  are  provided  by  the  same  Act  made 
in  the  Fourteenth  Yeare  of  the  Reigne  of  King  Charles  the  Second  in  relation 
to  prohibited  or  uncustomed  Goods  in  this  Kingdome  And  that  the  like  Assist- 
ance shall  bee  given  to  the  said  Officers  in  the  Execution  of  their  Office  as  by  the 
said  last  mentioned  Act  is  provided  for  the  Officers  in  England  And  alsoe  that 
the  said  Officers  shall  bee  subject  to  the  same  Penalties  and  Forfeitures  for  any 
Corruptions  Frauds  Connivances  or  Concealments  in  violation  of  any  the  before 
mentioned  Lawes  as  any  Officers  of  the  Customes  in  England  are  lyable  to  by 
vertue  of  the  said  last  mentioned  Act  And  also  that  in  case  any  Officer  or  Offi- 
cers in  the  Plantations  shall  bee  sued  or  molested  for  any  thing  done  in  the  Exe- 
cution of  their  Office  the  said  Officer  shall  and  may  plead  the  General  Issue  and 
shall  give  this  or  other  Custome  Acts  in  Evidence  and  the  Judge  to  allow  thereof 
have  and  enjoy  the  like  Priviledges  and  Advantages  as  are  allowed  by  Law  to  the 
Officers  of  His  Majesties  Customes  in  England.4 

The  purport  of  the  act  is  clear:  to  give  colonial  customs  officials  the 
same  legal  authority  that  officers  at  home  enjoyed.  They  were  to  have 
“the  same  Powers  and  Authorities  for  visiting  and  searching  Shipps  . . . 
as  are  provided  for  the  Officers  of  the  Customes  in  England  . . . and  alsoe 
to  enter  Houses  or  Warehouses  to  search  for  and  seize  any  such  goods. 
. . .”5  Actually,  of  course,  the  writ  of  assistance  is  nowhere  mentioned  by 
name6 * * * * * * * 14  and  least  of  all  is  there  any  indication  in  the  law  itself  whether  the 

4 Ibid.,  VII.  104. 

5 This  phrase  will  come  in  for  discussion  in  later  colonial  history.  Cf.  the  difficulty 
of  the  collector  and  comptroller  of  New  London,  24  May  1766,  PRO,  Treas.  1 , 453, 
and  the  opinion  of  the  attorney  general,  17  October  1766,  PRO,  Treas.  1,  453,  both 
cited  in  George  G.  Wolkins,  “Malcom  and  Writs  of  Assistance,”  Proc.  Mass.  Hist. 
Soc.y  lviii  (1924—1925),  58—61,  71—73. 

6 The  phrase  “like  Assistance”  was  sometimes  interpreted  to  mean  a writ  of  assist- 

ance. Thus  the  argument  of  Jeremy  Gridley  in  1761  reported  in  the  manuscript 

“Israel  Keith’s  Pleadings,  Arguments,  Extracts,  &c,”  printed  in  Horace  Gray, 

“Writs  of  Assistance”  in  Josiah  Quincy,  Reports  of  Cases  Argued  and  Adjudged  in 

the  Superior  Court  of  Judicature  of  the  Province  of  Massachusetts  Bay  Between 

1761  and  1772  (Samuel  Quincy  [ed.],  Boston,  1865),  p.  481;  cf.  pp.  478-482.  It 

seems  to  have  been  a more  general  phrase  and  may  have  referred  to  this  paragraph  of 

“An  Act  for  preventing  Frauds  and  regulating  Abuses  in  his  Majesties  Customes,” 

14  Car.  II  c.  1 1 : 

“And  be  it  further  enacted  and  ordained  That  all  Officers  belonging  to  the  Ad- 


1951]  Legislation  on  W rits  of  Assistance  355 

writ  mentioned  in  14  Car.  II  c.  1 1 was  understood  as  a general  writ  or  a 
particular  writ.  Even  when  we  turn  to  the  debates  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons and  the  House  of  Lords,  we  derive  little  or  no  indication  of  the  in- 
tentions of  Parliament. 

Oddly  enough,  the  bill  itself  seems  to  have  originated  actually  if  not 
technically  in  the  House  of  Lords.  During  the  investigation  of  the  East 
India  Company  chartered  by  the  Scottish  Parliament,7  the  committee  in 
one  of  its  December,  1695,  reports  included  this  suggestion: 

That  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs  attend  this  House,  to  give  an  Ac- 
count, whether,  as  the  Law  now  stands,  there  be  sufficient  Power,  in  Carolina , 
Maryland , Pensilvania , and  other  Plantations  where  there  are  Proprietors,  to 
collect  the  King’s  Duty  there:  and  whether  there  be  the  same  Security  to  pre- 
vent the  Inconveniences  that  may  arise  to  the  Proprietors  and  Planters  there, 
from  the  Act  of  Parliament  in  Scotland  for  erecting  an  East  India  Company  in 
that  Kingdom,  as  there  is  in  other  Plantations.8 

It  was  so  resolved  by  the  House  of  Lords.  Some  ten  days  later  the  resolu- 
tion was  renewed  and  the  Commissioners  of  Customs  ordered  to  attend.9 
The  Commissioners  were  also  ordered  to  give  an  account  of  the  trade  for 
the  previous  three  years.1 

Early  in  January,  1696,  the  Commissioners  of  Customs  delivered 
some  papers  to  the  House  of  Lords  which  may  have  contained  their  sug- 
gestions on  the  plantation  trade.2  A committee  was  appointed  to  consider 

miralty  Captaines  and  Commanders  of  Shipps  Forts  Castles  and  Block-houses  as 
alsoe  all  Justices  of  the  Peace  Mayors  and  Sheriffs  Bayliffes  Constables  and  Head- 
boroughs  and  all  the  Kings  Majesties  Officers  Ministers  and  Subjects  whatsoever 
whom  it  may  concern  shall  bee  aiding  and  assisting  to  all  and  every  person  and  per- 
sons which  are  or  shall  bee  appointed  by  His  Majesty  to  manage  His  Customes  and 
the  Officers  of  His  Majesties  Customes  and  theire  respective  Deputies  in  the  due  Ex- 
ecution of  all  and  every  Act  and  Thing  in  and  by  this  present  Act  required  and  en- 
joyned  And  all  such  who  shall  be  aiding  and  assisting  unto  them  in  the  due  execu- 
tion hereof  shall  be  defended  and  saved  harmelesse  by  vertue  of  this  Act,”  Statues 
of  the  Realm , v.  400. 

1~  V.,  e.g.,  Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons , 21  January  1695/96,  XI.  400—4075 
cf.  ibid.y  17  December  1695,  p.  3655  7 February  1695/96,  p.  4345  29  February,  p. 
477>  3 March,  p.  4885  4 March,  p.  4905  5 March,  p.  491,  etc.,  passim 5 Journals  of 
the  House  of  Lords , 3 December  1695,  xv.  603  5 5 December,  p.  605 ; 9 December,  p. 
60S5  12  December,  p.  6105  13  December,  pp.  611-6125  14  December,  p.  6135  16 
December,  p.  6145  17  December,  p.  6155  18  December,  p.  616. 

8 Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords , 20  December  1695,  xv.  6195  cf.  ibid.y  p.  6x8. 

9 Ibid.y  30  December  1695,  xv.  623. 

1 Ibid.,  30  December  1695,  xv.  6245  cf.  ibid.y  3 January  1695/96,  xv.  6285  6 Janu- 
ary, p.  6305  7 January,  pp.  631,  6325  9 January,  p.  634 5 1 5 January,  p.  641. 

2 Ibid.y  3 January  1695/96,  xv.  6285  6 January,  p.  6305  cf.  previous  footnote  and 


356  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

the  papers  and  hold  hearings,3  and  one  or  more  of  the  Commissioners  was 
ordered  to  attend.4  At  a meeting  on  8 January,  the  Commissioners  were 
told  that  they  would  do  well  to  prepare  the  bill  mentioned  by  them  with 
all  convenient  expediency.5 

The  first  report  of  the  committee  was  mostly  concerned  with  an  an- 
nual account  of  trade  the  Lords  wished  the  Customs  Commissioners  to 
supply.6  Even  the  committee  meeting  of  15  January  1696,  which  some 
of  the  Commissioners  were  again  ordered  to  attend,  seems  to  have  been 
mainly  concerned  with  this  account  of  imports  and  exports.7  The  next 
day,  however,  the  Commissioners  of  Customs  on  being  reminded  of  pro- 
posals to  strengthen  the  navigation  acts  reported  themselves  in  great  “for- 
wardness” in  preparing  such  measures.8  Thus,  four  days  later,  even 
though  there  was  still  talk  of  the  “Papers  touching  the  Balance  of  Trade,” 
the  committee  of  the  House  of  Lords  also  reported: 

“That  whereas  the  Commissioners  of  Customs  had  said,  ‘The  several  Planta- 
tions under  Proprietors  by  Grants  from  the  Crown  are  subject  to  the  Acts  for 
Trade,  and  other  Plantation  laws,  in  like  Manner  as  are  all  other  the  English 
Plantations’;  yet  they  are  now  become  sensible,  that  it  would  be  necessary  to 
strengthen  the  Acts  of  Navigation,  for  a further  Security  of  the  Trade  of  those 
Plantations;  and  they  are  in  great  Forwardness  to  offer  some  Bills  to  that  Pur- 
pose.” 9 

This  seems  to  have  ended  the  discussion  in  the  House  of  Lords  for  the 
present,  but  on  23  January,  in  the  House  of  Commons  it  was  “Ordered, 
That  Leave  be  given  to  bring  in  a Bill  for  preventing  Frauds,  and  regu- 
lating Abuses,  in  the  Plantation  Trade:  And  that  Mr.  Chadwick  and  Mr. 

the  places  there  cited;  cf.  mention  of  a draft  of  a bill  for  the  better  collection  of 
customs,  in  1685,  Calendar  of  Treasury  Books , vm.  363,  381,  385,  387,  397,  404, 
etc. 

3 Ibid.,  7 January  1695/96,  XV.  631. 

4 Ibid.,  7 January  1695/96,  XV.  632. 

5 House  of  Lords,  Committee  Books,  v.  11,  Library  of  Congress,  photofilm. 

6 Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords,  9 January  1695/96,  xv.  634. 

7 Ibid.,  15  January  1695/96,  xv.  641 ; House  of  Lords,  Committee  Books,  v.  28. 

8 House  of  Lords,  Committee  Books,  v.  29-30. 

9 “Their  Lordships  likewise  took  Notice  to  them  of  their  Letter,  which  they  had  pre- 
pared to  send,  as  from  themselves,  to  the  several  Governors  of  those  Plantations, 
under  the  distinct  Proprietors;  which  their  Lordships  recommended  to  them,  to 
make  Application  to  the  Lords  of  the  Treasury,  that  they  would  move  the  Council, 
‘That  Letters  to  that  Effect  might  be  sent  from  the  Council,  as  more  effectual  to  the 
Preservation  of  Trade  in  those  Parts;’  which  the  Commissioners  have  likewise  in- 
formed their  Lordships  they  have  since  done,  and  that  it  is  in  a Way  to  be  dispatched 
accordingly.”  Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords,  20  January  1695/96,  xv.  646. 


1951]  Legislation  on  Writs  of  Assistance  357 

Blathwnite  do  prepare,  and  bring  in,  the  Bill.”1  The  bill  was  presented 
and  read  for  the  first  time  on  27  January  1696, 2 but  it  was  not  until  12 
February  that  it  was  read  the  second  time.3  The  bill  was  considered  on 
9 March;  ’ several  amendments  were  made  and  agreed  to  on  12  March;5 
and  the  whole  was  passed  and  sent  to  the  House  of  Lords  on  19  March.6 
Only  the  bare  skeleton  was  reported;  and  nothing  at  all  on  search  war- 
rants. 

In  the  meantime  the  committee  from  the  House  of  Lords  had  been 
holding  sessions  with  Edward  Randolph7  in  constant  attendance,  but  we 
learn  nothing  of  the  writs  of  assistance.8  From  the  floor  of  the  House  of 
Lords  we  have  little  more.  The  bill  was  read9  and  given  to  a committee 
of  the  whole1  and  they  in  turn  again  ordered  Randolph  to  appear  as  a 
witness.2  Some  progress  was  made  and  then  the  “Judges”  were  asked  to 
attend.3  It  was  even 

Ordered,  by  the  Lords  Spiritual  and  Temporal  in  Parliament  assembled,  That 
the  Lord  Chief  Justice  of  the  Court  of  King’s  Bench  do  attend  this  House  on 
Thursday  next,  at  Ten  of  the  Clock  in  the  Forenoon,  to  give  the  House  an  Ac- 
count of  the  several  Laws  now  in  Force  concerning  the  Plantation  Trade,  and 
whether  those  Laws  interfere  one  with  the  other;  and  how  they  consist  with 
the  Clause  herewith  sent,  in  the  Bill  for  preventing  Frauds  and  regulating 
Abuses  in  the  Plantation  Trade.4 

After  a couple  of  debates5  the  bill  was  reported  fit  to  pass  with  amend- 
ments and  provisoes.6  It  quickly  did  so.7 

1 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons , 23  January  1695/96,  xi.  409  ; Herbert  L.  Os- 
good, The  American  Colonies  in  the  Eighteenth  Century  (New  York,  1924),  1.  178. 

2 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons , 27  January  1695/96,  XI . 415  ; cf.  ibid.,  1 Feb- 
ruary, p.  4245  6 February,  p.  433. 

3 Ibid.}  12  February  1695/96,  XI.  440;  cf.  ibid .,  22  February,  p.  461;  3 March,  p. 
487  ; 5 March,  p.  491 ; 6 March,  p.  495. 

4 Ibid.y  9 March  1695/96,  XI.  501.  0 Ibid.,  12  March  1695/96,  XI.  505—506. 

6 Ibid.y  19  March  1695/96,  xi.  524;  Journals  of  the  House  of  Lordsy  19  March 
1695/96,  xv.  711. 

7 Randolph  had  previously  been  active  in  the  colonies. 

s House  of  Lords,  Committee  Books,  v.  36-41;  cf.  the  proposal  of  Randolph,  30 
April  1681,  Calendar  of  Treasury  Books , VII.  131. 

9 Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords,  19  March  1695/96,  xv.  71 1. 

1 Ibid.,  20  March  1695/96,  xv.  712.  2 Ibid.,  23  March  1695/96,  XV.  714. 

3 Ibid.,  24  March  1695/96,  XV.  716.  4 Ibid. 

0 Ibid.,  26  March  1696,  xv.  718;  27  March,  p.  819. 

6 V.  Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons , 31  March  1696,  XI.  539—540,  for  the 
amendments. 

7 Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords , 28  March  1696,  XV.  720. 


358  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

The  bill  was  returned  to  the  House  of  Commons8  where  the  amend- 
ments were  considered  and  agreed  to  with  a further  amendment,9  and 
the  bill  was  shipped  back  to  the  House  of  Lords.1  Here  this  bill  was  ap- 
proved in  its  final  form2  and,  on  10  April  1696  the  King  gave  his  royal 
assent.3 

Not  too  much  was  reported  on  the  bill  itself,  and  nothing  at  all  on  the 
powers  of  search.  It  is  to  be  noted,  however,  that  the  bill  explicitly  re- 
enacts “An  Act  for  preventing  Frauds  and  regulating  Abuses  in  his  Maj- 
esties Customes”4  and  says  nothing  about  the  first  “Act  to  prevent  Fraudes 
and  Concealments  of  His  Majestyes  Customes  and  Subsidyes.”5  Did  this 
mean  that  this  Parliament  considered  that  the  writ  of  assistance  from 
the  Court  of  Exchequer  mentioned  in  14  Car.  II  c.  11  had  superseded 
the  warrant  mentioned  in  12  Car.  II  c.  19?  It  is  possible.  Did  they  con- 
sider one  as  a general  the  other  as  a particular  warrant?  It  is  possible,  but 

8 Ibid.,  28  March  1696,  xv.  7205  Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons , 28  March 
1 696,  xi.  547. 

9 Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons , 31  March  1696,  XI.  539—540. 

1 Ibid.;  Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords , 31  March  1696,  XV.  722. 

2 Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords , 3 1 March  1696,  xv.  722. 

3 Ibid.,  10  April  1696,  xv.  732;  Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons , 10  April  1696, 
xi.  555. 

4 14  Car.  He.  11,  Statutes  of  the  Realm , V.  393—397. 

5 12  Car.  II  c.  19,  Statutes  of  the  Realm , v.  250.  This  bill  was  re-enacted  by  “An 
Act  for  confirming-  Publique  Acts,”  13  Car.  II  c.  7,  ibid.,  309-3105  “An  Act  for 
setleing  the  Revenue  on  His  Majestie  for  His  Life  which  was  setled  on  His  late  Maj- 
estie  for  His  Life,”  1 Jac.  II  c.  1,  ibid.,  vi.  1 ; “An  Act  for  making  good  Deficien- 
cies & for  preserving  the  Publick  Credit,”  1 Ann.  c.  7,  ibid.,  vm.  40—48  ; “An  Act  for 
reviving  continuing  and  appropriating  certain  Duties  upon  several  Commodities  to 
be  exported  and  certain  Duties  upon  Coals  to  be  waterborn  and  carried  coastwise 
and  for  granting  further  Duties  upon  Candles  for  Thirty  two  Years  to  raise  Fif- 
teen hundred  thousand  Pounds  by  Way  of  a Lottery  for  the  Service  of  the  Year  One 
thousand  seven  hundred  and  eleven  and  for  suppressing  such  unlawful  Lotteries  and 
such  Insurance  Offices  as  are  therein  mentioned,”  9 Ann.  c.  6,  ibid.,  ix.  366— 384; 
“An  Act  for  redeeming  the  Duties  and  Revenues  which  are  settled  to  pay  off  Princi- 
pal and  Interest  on  the  Orders  made  forth  on  four  Lottery-Acts  passed  in  the  ninth 
and  tenth  Years  of  her  late  Majesty’s  Reign;  and  for  redeeming  certain  Annuities 
payable  on  Orders  out  of  the  Hereditary  Excise,  according  to  a former  Act  in  that 
Behalf;  and  for  establishing  a General  Yearly  Fund,  not  only  for  the  future  Pay- 
ment of  Annuities  at  several  Rates,  to  be  payable  and  transferrable  at  the  Bank  of 
England,  and  redeemable  by  Parliament,  but  also  to  raise  Monies  for  such  Propri- 
etors of  the  said  Orders  who  shall  choose  to  be  paid  their  Principal  and  Arrears  of 
Interest  in  ready  Money;  and  for  making  good  such  other  Deficiencies  and  Pay- 
ments as  in  this  Act  are  mentioned;  and  for  taking  off  the  Duties  on  Linseed  import- 
ed, and  British  Linen  exported,”  3 Geo.  I c.  7,  Statutes  at  Large  (London,  1763), 
V.  104— 1 19;  cf.  sufra,  section  one. 


1951]  Legislation  on  Writs  of  Assistance  359 

there  is  no  proof.6  In  other  words,  it  is  impossible  to  decide  from  the  bill, 
which  does  not  even  mention  a writ  of  assistance  explicitly,  or  from  the 
debates  in  Parliament,  which  give  us  no  information  on  the  problem  of 
search,  or  from  the  committee  books  of  the  House  of  Lords,  just  what 
was  intended  by  this  measure.  It  is  just  not  known,  nor  are  the  other  laws 
and  other  debates  of  this  Parliament  much  of  a help  in  solving  the 
problem. 

As  can  be  seen,  neither  the  bills  nor  the  debates  of  this  Parliament  are 
of  any  help  in  trying  to  come  to  any  positive  decision  on  writs  of  assistance. 
At  most  we  have  a few  hints  of  disapproval  of  general  warrants  and  the 
use  of  particular  ones.  There  was  simply  no  real  discussion  of  the  search 
problem  reported  in  either  House. 

Conclusion 

What,  then,  can  be  said,  in  summary,  of  the  legislation  of  Parliament 
authorizing  search  warrants  for  customs  officials? 

1.  Parliament  passed  a very  specific  law  granting  searching  privileges 
under  a very  specific  warrant  and  power  to  overcome  resistance.7  Of  this 
we  are  certain.  There  was  no  mistaking  the  intention.  Even  the  back- 
ground of  the  bill  is  reasonably  clear.8 

2.  The  only  bill  which  legislates  a writ  of  assistance  by  name  does  not 
itself  indicate  whether  this  was  to  be  a specific  or  a general  search  war- 
rant.9 Other  legislation  of  the  same  Parliament  makes  it  highly  probable 
that  it  was  intended  only  as  a specific  warrant.1 

3.  There  is  no  positive  evidence  anywhere  that  the  writ  of  assistance 
was  intended  by  Parliament  to  be  a general  warrant  and  a good  deal  of 
evidence  to  indicate  that  it  was  not. 


6 With  such  a witness  as  Randolph  it  is  quite  possible  that  this  Parliament  intended 
to  issue  general  search  warrants,  particularly  for  the  colonies.  Certainly  they  in- 
tended all  that  was  allowed  in  England.  By  this  time  there  had  been  published  in 
England  a Latin  form  of  a general  writ  of  assistance  which  was  to  be  translated  for 
the  writ  of  1755  in  Massachusetts.  [William  Brown],  Compendium  of  the  Several 
Branches  of  Practice  in  the  Court  of  Exchequer , at  Westminster  (London,  1688). 
Parliament  may  have  had  this  writ  in  mind. 

7 “An  Act  to  prevent  Fraudes  and  Concealments  of  His  Majestyes  Customes  and 
Subsidyes,”  12  Car.  II  c.  19,  Statutes  of  the  Realm , v.  250. 

8 Sufray  section  one. 

9 “An  Act  for  preventing  Frauds  and  regulating  Abuses  in  his  Majesties  Customes,” 
14  Car.  II  c.  n,  Statutes  of  the  Realm}  v.  393—397. 

1 Sufra}  section  two. 


360  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

Mr.  Jerome  Davis  Greene  spoke  informally  on  the  theme: 
“Milford  Haven:  a Colony  of  Massachusetts  in  Great  Britain,” 
referring  to  the  effort  made  after  the  American  Revolution  to 
settle  Nantucket  whalemen,  first  in  Nova  Scotia,  and  then  in 
Wales. 

Mr.  Walter  Muir  Whitehill  offered  the  following  con- 
tribution: 

Tutor  Flynt’s  Silver  Chamber-pot 

IN  A Collection  oj  College  Words  and  Customs , published  by  John  Bart- 
lett, the  instigator  of  the  often  revised  Familiar  Quotations , at  Cam- 
bridge in  1851,  it  is  stated  that  the  Latin  word  mingo  was  formerly 
used  at  Harvard  College  to  designate  a chamber-pot.1  In  explanation, 
Bartlett  cited  an  incident  in  the  long  career  of  the  Reverend  Henry 
Flynt2  of  the  Harvard  class  of  1693,  who  was  a Fellow  of  Harvard  Col- 
lege from  1700  to  1760.  “Many  years  ago,  some  of  the  students  of  Har- 
vard College,  wishing  to  make  a present  to  their  Tutor,  Mr.  Flynt,  called 
on  him,  informed  him  of  their  intention,  and  requested  him  to  select  a 
gift  which  would  be  acceptable  to  him.  He  replied  that  he  was  a single 
man,  that  he  already  had  a well-filled  library,  and  in  reality  wanted  noth- 
ing. The  students,  not  all  satisfied  with  this  answer,  determined  to  pre- 
sent him  with  a silver  chamber-pot.  One  was  accordingly  made  of  the  ap- 
propriate dimensions  and  inscribed  with  these  words: 

Mingere  cum  bombis 
Res  est  saluberrima  lumbis. 

On  the  morning  of  Commencement  Day,  this  was  borne  in  procession  in 
a morocco  case,  and  presented  to  the  Tutor.  Tradition  does  not  say  with 
what  feelings  he  received  it,  but  it  remained  for  many  years  at  a room  in 
Quincy,3  where  he  was  accustomed  to  spend  his  Saturdays  and  Sundays, 


1 207—208. 

2 Clifford  K.  Shipton,  Sibley’s  Harvard  Graduates  (Cambridge:  Harvard  University 
Press,  1933),  IV.  162— 167. 

3 Judge  Edmund  Quincy,  who  had  married  Tutor  Flynt’s  sister  Dorothy,  added  in 
1706  to  the  Quincy  homestead  a wing,  containing  a study  with  a bedroom  above, 
reached  by  a private  staircase,  for  his  brother-in-law’s  accommodation.  See  Edith 
Woodbury  Coyle,  “The  Quincy  Homestead,”  Old-Time  New  England , XIX  (1929), 
147-158. 


1 95 1 ] Tutor  Flynt’s  Silver  Chamber-pot  361 

and  finally  disappeared,  about  the  beginning  of  the  Revolutionary  War. 
It  is  supposed  to  have  been  carried  to  England.” 

The  story  is  entirely  understandable,  first  of  all  because  Tutor  Flynt 
was  the  kind  of  man  to  whom  one  would  like  to  give  a present,  if  one  may 
judge  by  an  anecdote  quoted  by  C.  K.  Shipton.  “At  morning  recitation  in 
his  chamber,  while  the  students  were  standing  around,  he  chanced  to  look 
in  the  glass  and  see  one  of  them  behind  him  lift  a keg  of  wine  from  the 
table  and  take  a satisfying  drink  from  the  bung-hole.  ‘I  thought,’  said  Fa- 
ther Flynt,  ‘I  would  not  disturb  him  while  drinking;  but,  as  soon  as  he 
had  done,  I turned  round  and  told  him  he  ought  to  have  had  the  manners 
to  have  drank  to  somebody.’  ”4 

In  the  second  place,  the  old  gentleman  had  been  in  residence  for  so 
many  decades  that  he  had  already  received  ex  dono  pupillorum  candlesticks, 
teapot,  covered  cup,  porringer,  and  silver  in  most  of  the  forms  for  which 
it  is  manufactured  for  polite  presentation.5  Thirdly,  elegant  persons  in  the 
eighteenth  century  saw  no  reason  why  their  chamber-pots  should  not  be 
fashioned  from  precious  metal.  As  late  as  1812,  Sir  Walter  Scott  and  his 
lively  friend  J.  B.  S.  Morritt  were  exchanging  jests  on  the  theme.  Morritt 
regaled  Scott  with  the  account  of  Lady  Holland’s  habit  of  traveling  with 
a silver  chamber-pot.  During  a visit  she  made  in  the  “South  country,”  her 
hostess’s  chambermaid  carried  “her  ladyship’s  favorite”  to  the  “under- 
butler, as  she  said  it  was  his  business  to  clean  plate”  and  he  in  turn  “ap- 
pealed to  the  Major  domo,  alleging  that  a pot-de-chambrey  though  of  sil- 
ver, did  not  fall  within  his  jurisdiction.  The  ladies  and  gentlemen  of  the 
second  and  third  table  broke  into  feuds,  and  being  unable  to  agree  in  the 
decision  of  the  housekeeper  or  butler,  the  parties  in  procession  carried  the 
subject  in  dispute  to  their  master  and  mistress,  who  have  ever  since  been 
. . . angry  ...  at  the  fastidiousness  of  her  ladyship.”6  Scott,  claiming  that 
“nothing  can  exceed  the  tale  of  the  silver  Chalice,”  repaid  Morritt  with 
the  tale  of  “a  huge  implement  of  this  metal  at  Armiston  not  reserved  for 
the  commodity  of  any  individual  but  usually  brought  in  after  dinner  when 
there  is  a large  company  for  the  general  use  and  benefit.”7 

4 Sibley’s  Harvard  Graduates , IV.  164— 165. 

5 Harvard  Tercentenary  Exhibition  Catalogue  of  the  Furniture  Silver  Pewter  Glass 
Ceramics  Paintings  Prints  Together  with  Allied  Arts  and  Crafts  of  the  Periodi6^6— 
1 8 3 <5  (Cambridge,  1936),  103,  describes  various  pieces  of  silver  owned  by  Tutor 
Flynt,  and  illustrates  (Plate  17)  the  pair  of  candlesticks  by  John  Coney  given  by 
students  in  1716. 

6 Wilfred  Partington,  ed.,  The  Private  Letter-Books  of  Sir  Walter  Scott  (London, 
1930),  18 1—182. 

7 H.  J.  C.  Grierson,  ed.,  The  Letters  of  Sir  W alter  Scott  18 1 1— 18 14  (London,  1932), 


362  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [april 

Moreover  the  students’  gift  to  Tutor  Flynt  showed  a becoming  eru- 
dition, which  clearly  indicated  that  Harvard  College  in  the  first  half  of 
the  eighteenth  century  piously  preserved  the  memory  of  the  great  medi- 
eval Italian  medical  school  of  Salerno,  for  the  Latin  verses  engraved  upon 
the  chamber  pot  were  not  a contemporary  Harvard  witticism,  but  a direct 
quotation  from  the  Prcscepta  generalis — sub-heading  Egestio — ventositas  et 
mictura — of  the  celebrated  Schola  Salernitana.8  These  verses  must  have  been 
often  repeated  in  succeeding  centuries,  for  Professor  Morris  P.  Tilley 
gives  them  as  the  source  of  the  English  proverb,  “Piss  and  fart,  a sound 
heart”  and  cites  similar  instances  in  Spanish  and  Italian.  James  Boswell 
must  have  known  the  Latin  jingle,  for,  while  misbehaving  himself  on  the 
Continent,  he  perverted  its  meaning  by  entering  in  a memorandum  of 
12  October  1764:  “Then  had  girl,  merely  saluberrima  lumbis.”9 

A quarter  of  a century  ago  our  fellow  member  Dr.  Harold  Bowditch 
conducted  a widespread  search  in  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  for 
Tutor  Flynt’s  silver  chamber-pot,  hoping  to  be  able  to  include  it  in  the 
Harvard  Tercentenary  exhibition.  As  his  diligent  labors  were  without  re- 
sult,1 it  seems  probable  that  the  pot  in  question  shared  the  fate  of  an  ear- 
lier vessel  eulogized  in  a poem  entitled  “On  Melting  down  the  Plate:  Or 
the  Piss-pot’s  Farewel,  1697,”  which  begins: 

Maids  need  no  more  their  Silver  Piss-pots  scour, 

They  now  must  jog  like  traitors  to  the  Tower. 

• • • • • 

When  thou,  transformed  into  another  shape, 

Shalt  make  the  World  rejoice  at  thy  Escape; 

And  from  the  Mint  in  triumph  shall  be  sent, 

New  coin’d  and  mill’d,  to  ev’ry  Hearts  content. 

1 1 3-1 14.  Scott  tells  of  the  confusion  resulting  on  an  evening  when,  by  chance,  ladies 
had  lingered  longer  than  usual  in  the  dining  room,  the  butler  “stalked  into  the  room 
bearing  in  both  hands  this  brilliant  Heirloom.”  Upon  perceiving  his  blunder  he 
beat  a hasty  retreat  crying  “God  forgie  me” — as  no  Frenchman  would  have — and 
“shrouding  with  a napkin  the  late  object  of  his  solemn  entry.” 

8 Ch.  Meaux  Saint-Marc,  Uecole  de  Salerne , traduction  en  vers  frangais  . . . avec  le 
texte  latin  (Paris,  1880),  73,  where  the  text  is  given  as 

Antiquo  more  mingens  pedis  absque  pudore 
Mingere  cum  bombis  res  est  saluberrima  lombis. 

9 Frederick  A.  Pottle,  ed.,  Boswell  on  the  Grand  Tour  Germany  and  Switzerland 
1764  (New  York,  1953),  136. 

1 The  presence  of  a silver  chamber-pot  in  the  Corporation  silver  of  York,  England 
(reported  by  Jerome  D.  Greene),  led  Dr.  Bowditch  to  envision  the  happy  hope  that 
it  might  be  Tutor  Flynt’s  and  that,  if  so,  it  might  be  borrowed  for  the  Tercentenary 
exhibition.  Inquiry  produced  a courteous  communication  from  the  Lord  Mayor  of 
York  that  gave  indisputable  evidence  that  the  York  pot  was  not  Flynt’s. 


1951]  Tutor  Fly nt’s  Silver  Chamber-pot  363 

Welcome  to  all,  then  proud  of  thy  new  Vamp, 

Bearing  the  Passport  of  a Royal  Stamp; 

And  pass  as  current,  pleasant,  and  as  free, 

As  that  which  hath  so  oft  pass’d  into  thee.2 

Although  Dr.  Bowditch  was  unable  to  recover  this  dignified  relic  for 
the  collections  of  Harvard  University,  other  neighboring  institutions  pos- 
sess related  trophies.  The  Club  of  Odd  Volumes  exhibits — in  the  same 
case  with  a History  oj  the  Brighton  Artillery >3  and  a presentation  copy  of 
F.D.R.’s  On  Our  Way — a pottery  utensil  reputed  to  bear  the  arms  of 
William  III,  which  Sir  Winston  Churchill  suggested  to  President  A.  P. 
Loring,  Jr.,  should  be  used  for  drinking  punch.  The  Cabinet  of  the  Mas- 
sachusetts Historical  Society  contains  a pot  ornamented  with  the  likeness 
of  General  Benjamin  F.  Butler,  presented  by  a traveling  Bostonian  who 
seemingly  stole  it  from  a Mississippi  River  steamboat  soon  after  the  Civil 
War.  In  the  collection  of  pewter  given  to  Boston  University  by  the  Rev- 
erend H.  J.  Hill  of  Concord,  New  Hampshire,  is  a mid-eighteenth-cen- 
tury pewter  bedpan,  thought  to  be  of  American  origin.4  The  Bostonian 
Society  is  reliably  reported5  to  have  owned  within  the  present  century  one 
of  the  French  porcelain  pots  adorned  with  the  portrait  of  Benjamin  Frank- 
lin and  the  motto  eripuit  coelo  fulmen  sceptrumque  tirannis 
that  Louis  XVI,  bored  with  the  Comtesse  Diane  de  Polignac’s  ardors  over 
Franklin,  had  made  at  the  Sevres  manufactory  as  a New  Year’s  gift  for 
her.6 7  Today  the  Society  can  only  produce  a neatly  mounted  Sevres  me- 
dallion of  Franklin,  which  gives  rise  to  suspicion  of  bowdlerization  by  past 
officers.1 


2 Poems  on  Affairs  of  State , From  the  Time  of  Oliver  Cromvoell,  to  the  Abdication 
of  K.  James  Second  (London,  1716,  6th  ed.),  1.  215—2x6. 

3 For  an  account  of  this  bibliographical  fraud,  which  sprang  from  boredom  wfith 
the  pretentions  of  the  Ancient  and  Honorable  Artillery  Company,  see  Charles  Eliot 
Goodspeed,  Yankee  Bookseller  (Boston,  1937),  63—65.  This  unique  work  was  given 
to  the  Club  of  Odd  Volumes  by  Charles  H.  Taylor  (1867-194.1)  of  the  Boston 
Globe , “the  fictitious  Mr.  Smith”  of  Mr.  Goodspeed’s  autobiography. 

4 On  exhibition  in  the  Chenery  Library.  The  object  is  10/T  in  diameter  and  2P2” 
deep. 

5 Charles  P.  Curtis  tells  me  that  his  cousin,  Horatio  Greenough  Curtis,  of  the  Har- 
vard Class  of  1865,  who  died  in  1922,  saw  it. 

6 Carl  Van  Doren,  Benjamin  Franklin  (New  York,  1938),  632,  quoting  Madame  de 
Campan,  Memoires  sur  la  vie  frivee  de  Marie  Antoinette. 

7 In  the  four  years  that  have  passed  since  I suggested  the  possibility  of  this  historical 
expurgation  in  the  May,  1954,  issue  of  Athenceum  Items  no  denial  has  been  made 
by  the  Bostonian  Society. 


Journey  to  Plymouth 

13  September  1951 

ON  Thursday,  13  September  1951,  twenty-seven  mem- 
bers of  the  Society  journeyed  to  Plymouth  at  the  invi- 
tation of  Mr.  Ellis  Wethrell  Brewster,  a Resi- 
dent Member  of  the  Society,  and  President  of  the  Plymouth 
Cordage  Company,  of  which  our  President,  Augustus  Peabody 
Loring,  Jr.,  was  Chairman  of  the  Board.  A bus  of  the  Boston 
and  Maine  Transportation  Company  provided  an  easy  and  agree- 
able journey  to  Plymouth,  where  the  members  inspected  the 
standard  historical  sites  and  the  works  of  the  Plymouth  Cordage 
Company.  Returning  to  Boston,  the  bus  ignominiously  collapsed, 
but  fortunately  in  close  proximity  to  a cider  mill  in  Hanover, 
where  the  members  passed  the  late  afternoon  agreeably  until  a 
relief  bus  arrived  from  Boston. 

In  honor  of  this  journey,  Mr.  Samuel  Eliot  Morison  pre- 
pared the  following  paper,  which  is  a revision  of  an  address  that 
he  delivered  to  the  Society  of  Mayflower  Descendants  in  the 
State  of  New  Hampshire  in  1936,  which  was  printed  at  the 
Merrymount  Press  the  following  year  in  a limited  edition: 

The  Pilgrim  Fathers 

Their  Significance  in  History 

Why  are  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  Significant? 

THE  place  of  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  in  American  history  can  best  be 
stated  by  a paradox.  Of  slight  importance  in  their  own  time,  they 
are  of  great  and  increasing  significance  in  our  time,  through  the 
influence  of  their  story  on  American  folklore  and  tradition.  And  the  key  to 
that  story,  the  vital  factor  in  this  little  group,  is  the  faith  in  God  that  exalted 
them  and  their  small  enterprise  to  something  of  lasting  value  and  enduring 
interest. 

The  first  half  of  this  paradox,  the  insignificance  of  the  Plymouth  Colony 
in  the  colonial  era,  is  one  upon  which  almost  all  American  historians  are 
now  agreed.  It  was  the  earliest  colony  in  New  England,  and  it  proved  to 


1951]  The  Pilgrim  Fathers  365 

the  great  mass  of  English  Puritans  who  were  seeking  a home  in  the  New 
World  that  it  was  possible  to  make  a living  in  New  England.  But,  after 
1629,  New  Plymouth  (the  official  name  of  the  Pilgrims’  colony)  was 
overshadowed  by  the  Colony  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  to  which  it  was  an- 
nexed in  1691.  Massachusetts  Bay,  rather  than  Plymouth  Colony,  was  the 
seed  bed  of  New  England.  There  and  in  Connecticut  and  New  Haven  the 
distinctive  New  England  institutions  of  church  and  state,  culture  and  com- 
merce were  developed.  And  it  was  in  Rhode  Island,  Maine  and  Maryland 
rather  than  in  New  Plymouth  that  germinated  the  seeds  of  democracy  and 
religious  liberty  which  are  among  the  principal  glories  of  our  American 
heritage. 

Three  American  institutions  may  be  said  to  have  been  founded  or  at 
least  started  by  the  Pilgrim  Fathers.  These  were,  registry  of  deeds  and 
civil  marriage,  both  of  which  they  had  picked  up  from  the  Dutch,  and  the 
Congregational  Church,  which  they  were  the  first  in  America  to  set  up. 
Massachusetts  Bay  would  probably  have  adopted  the  Congregational  form 
of  church  organization  in  any  case;  but  few  if  any  of  her  early  leaders  had 
seen  an  actual  working  church  of  that  pattern;  and  when  Dr.  Samuel 
Fuller,  the  Pilgrim  physician,  visited  Salem  in  1629  to  cure  the  epidemic 
that  broke  out  there  among  the  recent  immigrants,  he  was  able  to  describe 
tlie  government  of  the  First  Church  of  Plymouth  in  a manner  that 
clinched  the  argument  for  the  First  Church  of  Salem  being  a Congrega- 
tional Church. 

For  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  of  Plymouth  were  Puritans.  They  must  share 
in  whatever  praise  be  accorded  to  the  Puritans  for  their  virtues,  and  blame 
for  their  shortcomings.  The  word  “Puritan”  used  in  their  day  meant  the 
people  who  wished  to  push  the  Protestant  Reformation  to  what  they  con- 
ceived to  be  its  logical  conclusion.  All  Puritans,  generally  speaking,  were 
Calvinist  in  theology;  but  they  might  be  Presbyterian,  Congregationalist 
or  otherwise  in  their  views  of  church  government,  and  Nonconformist  or 
Separatist  in  their  attitude  toward  the  Anglican  Church.  The  nucleus  of 
the  Pilgrim  Fathers  was  a congregation  of  English  Separatists — left- 
wingers of  the  Puritan  movement — who  fled  from  England  in  1608  and 
settled  at  Leyden  in  Holland.  Their  pastor,  the  Rev.  John  Robinson,  was  a 
broadminded  scholar  who,  after  sundry  conferences  with  other  Puritan 
leaders,  worked  out  the  Congregational  Church  organization  which  in 
time  became  the  official  church  of  colonial  New  England.  We  should  drop 
the  misleading  antithesis  of  “Pilgrim  and  Puritan,”  invented  in  the  nine- 
teenth century.  The  Pilgrims  were  Puritans;  nobody  more  so. 

Even  the  Pilgrim  church  at  Plymouth  was  soon  overshadowed  by  the 


366  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [sept. 

churches  that  sprang  up  elsewhere  in  New  England,  churches  whose 
learned  and  brilliant  pastors,  such  as  John  Cotton,  Thomas  Hooker, 
Thomas  Shepard,  contributed  to  the  literature  of  Puritanism  and  Congre- 
gationalism, as  the  simple  parsons  of  Plymouth  Colony  never  did.  By  any 
quantitative  standard,  the  Plymouth  Colony  was  one  of  the  smallest,  weak- 
est and  least  important  of  the  English  colonies,  even  of  those  in  New  Eng- 
land. But  in  quality,  especially  in  spiritual  quality,  it  was  second  to  none. 

If  all  this  be  true,  you  may  well  ask,  why  does  the  Colony  of  New 
Plymouth  bulk  so  large  in  the  historical  consciousness  of  today?  Why  do 
most  Americans  and  all  Englishmen  (to  the  intense  annoyance  of  Vir- 
ginians, whose  Jamestown  colony  was  founded  thirteen  years  earlier)  fre- 
quently claim  priority  for  the  Mayflower ? Why  do  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  so 
constantly  figure  in  poetry,  oratory,  comic  strips  and  advertisements 
around  Thanksgiving  Day? 

You  may  answer  this  question  for  yourself  by  reading  even  a small  part 
of  William  Bradford’s  History  of  Plymouth  Plantation.  Here  is  a story  of 
simple  people  impelled  by  an  ardent  faith  in  God  to  a dauntless  courage  in 
danger,  a boundless  resourcefulness  in  face  of  difficulty,  an  impregnable 
fortitude  in  adversity.  It  strengthens  and  inspires  us  still,  after  more  than 
three  centuries,  in  this  age  of  change  and  uncertainty.  Bradford’s  History 
strikes  the  note  of  stout-hearted  idealism  that  all  Americans  respect,  even 
when  they  cannot  share  it.  Governor  Bradford’s  annals,  as  retold  by  count- 
less historians  and  teachers,  and  by  poets  like  Longfellow,  have  secured 
for  this  brave  little  band  a permanent  place  in  American  history  and 
American  folklore.  The  story  of  their  patience  and  fortitude,  and  the 
workings  of  that  unseen  force  which  bears  up  heroic  souls  in  the  doing  of 
mighty  errands,  as  often  as  it  is  read  or  told,  quickens  the  spiritual  forces 
in  American  life,  strengthens  faith  in  God,  and  confidence  in  human  na- 
ture. Thus  the  Pilgrims  in  a sense  have  become  the  spiritual  ancestors  of  all 
Americans,  whatever  their  stock,  race  or  creed.  Bradford  foretold  it  him- 
self in  these  words: 

Thus  out  of  small  beginnings  greater  things  have  been  produced  by  His  hand 
that  made  all  things  of  nothing,  and  gives  being  to  all  things  that  are;  and  as  one 
small  candle  may  light  a thousand,  so  the  light  here  kindled  hath  shone  unto 
many,  yea  in  some  sort  to  our  whole  Nation.  . . . 

(<They  Knew  They  Were  Pilgrims ” 

The  Plymouth  Pilgrims  were  simple  folk.  Only  one,  Elder  William 
Brewster,  had  a university  education.  Only  two  others,  John  Carver  and 


1951]  The  Pilgrim  F athers  367 

Edward  Winslow,  were  ranked  as  gentlemen.  The  rest,  as  Bradford  him- 
self, a self-educated  farmer’s  son,  wrote,  “followed  the  innocent  trade  of 
husbandry. ” During  the  ten  years  that  they  spent  in  Leyden,  they  earned 
a living  in  various  humble  occupations  such  as  weaving  and  dyeing.  Elder 
Brewster  ran  a printing  shop  where  he  produced  Puritan  tracts  that  could 
not  pass  the  censorship  in  England.  There  were  several  congregations  of 
English  Puritan  exiles  in  the  Netherlands;  but  this  one  at  Leyden,  al- 
though inferior  in  social  status  to  some,  was  their  superior  in  spirit,  a veri- 
table band  of  brothers.  The  others  thought  only  of  getting  back  to  Eng- 
land; but  the  Rev.  John  Robinson’s  band  looked  to  something  beyond, 
and  bore  hardship  with  a cheerful  spirit.  They  resisted  the  unpleasant  refu- 
gee propensity  to  complain.  For,  said  Bradford,  “they  knew  they  were 
Pilgrims,  and  looked  not  much  on  those  things,  but  lift  up  their  eyes  to  the 
heavens,  their  dearest  country,  and  quieted  their  spirits.”1  In  a letter  to 
Sir  Edwin  Sandys  on  the  subject  of  removing  to  Virginia,  Brewster  and 
Robinson  declared: 

We  verily  believe  and  trust  the  Lord  is  with  us, . . . and  that  He  will  graciously 
prosper  our  endeavours  according  to  the  simplicity  of  our  hearts  therein.  . . . 

We  are  knit  together  as  a body  in  a most  strict  and  sacred  bond  and  covenant 
of  the  Lord,  ...  by  virtue  whereof  we  do  hold  ourselves  straitly  tied  to  all  care 
of  each  other’s  good,  and  of  the  whole.  . . . 

It  is  not  with  us  as  with  other  men,  whom  small  things  can  discourage,  or  small 
discontentments  cause  to  wish  themselves  at  home  again.  . . . 

A noble  declaration,  abundantly  carried  out! 

Bradford  relates  the  “reasons  for  their  removal”  from  Holland;  their 
negotiations  with  the  London  merchant  adventurers  who  provided  the 
funds;  the  touching  farewell  at  Delfthaven,  22  July;  the  long  delay  at 
Southampton  while  the  merchants  tried  to  screw  a few  extra  pounds  out 
of  them;  the  first  start  with  the  two  ships;  the  disheartening  return  to 
Plymouth  in  order  to  abandon  the  unseaworthy  Sfeedwell ; and  how  “these 
troubles  being  blown  over,  and  now  all  being  compact  together  in  one  ship 
with  a prosperous  wind”  they  finally  squared  away  on  6 September  1620. 
As  the  historian  Charles  McLean  Andrews  wrote,  “No  enterprise  in  over- 
seas settlement  thus  far  undertaken  can  compare  with  this  desperate  proj- 
ect” of  the  Leyden  Pilgrims. 

Let  us  not  forget  the  deep  debt  that  the  Pilgrims  owed  to  the  Virginia 
Company  of  London,  which  was  still  struggling  to  make  a success  of  the 
first  English  colony,  on  the  Chesapeake.  Sir  Edwin  Sandys,  elected  treas- 


1 An  allusion  to  Hebrews  xi.  13-16. 


368  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [sept. 

urer  of  the  Virginia  Company  in  1619,  was  a nephew  of  the  Archbishop 
of  York,  who  employed  Elder  Brewster’s  father;  and  through  his  good 
offices  the  Pilgrims  and  the  London  merchants  associated  with  them  ob- 
tained from  the  Company  a land  patent.  They  were  to  be  one  of  those 
“Particular  Plantations”  settled  by  organized  groups,  to  which  the  Vir- 
ginia Company  offered  large  tracts  of  land  and  a limited  autonomy.  The 
text  of  this  patent  has  never  been  found,  and  probably  is  lost  forever.  An- 
drews conjectures  very  plausibly  that  it  specified  no  particular  place  for  the 
location  of  the  Hundred,  which  the  Pilgrims  were  free  to  take  up  on  any 
of  the  numerous  unoccupied  shores  of  the  then  South  Virginia,  which 
stretched  from  the  Chesapeake  almost  to  the  Hudson.  And  the  experience 
of  the  Virginia  Colony  was  of  incalculable  value  to  the  Pilgrims.  Captain 
John  Smith,  in  an  interesting  passage,  declares  that  he  offered  his  personal 
service  to  the  Pilgrims,  but  that  they  were  content  to  peruse  his  writings.  It 
is  certainly  difficult  to  imagine  that  gallant  captain  in  the  place  of  Myles 
Standish ! 

The  Mayflower  Compact 

The  Mayflower  Compact,2  like  many  of  the  Pilgrims’  praiseworthy 
acts,  has  been  overrated.  It  has  been  called  the  First  American  Constitu- 
tion, a Charter  of  Democracy,  an  actual  contrat  social  such  as  Rousseau  de- 
scribed from  his  imagination,  a Basic  Document  of  American  Liberty, 
and  I know  not  what  else.  But  your  historian  is  content  with  what  Brad- 
ford says.  It  was  “a  Combination  made  by  them  before  they  came  ashore 
. . . occasioned  partly  by  the  discontented  and  mutinous  speeches  that  some 
of  the  strangers  amongst  them  had  let  fall.  . . . that  when  they  came 
ashore  they  would  use  their  own  liberty;  for  none  had  power  to  command 

2 In  the  name  of  God,  Amen. 

We  whose  names  are  underwritten,  the  loyal  subjects  of  our  dread  sovereign  Lord, 
King  James,  by  the  grace  of  God,  of  Great  Britain,  France,  and  Ireland  King,  De- 
fender of  the  Faith,  etc. 

Having  undertaken,  for  the  glory  of  God  and  advancement  of  the  Christian  faith 
and  honour  of  our  king  and  country,  a voyage  to  plant  the  first  colony  in  the  northern 
parts  of  Virginia,  do  by  these  presents  solemnly  and  mutually  in  the  presence  of  God 
and  one  of  another,  covenant  and  combine  ourselves  together  into  a civil  body  poli- 
tic, for  our  better  ordering  and  preservation  and  furtherance  of  the  ends  aforesaid  j 
and  by  virtue  hereof  to  enact,  constitute  and  frame  such  just  and  equal  laws,  ordi- 
nances, acts,  constitutions  and  offices,  from  time  to  time,  as  shall  be  thought  most 
meet  and  convenient  for  the  general  good  of  the  colony,  unto  which  we  promise  all 
due  submission  and  obedience. 

In  witness  whereof  we  have  hereunder  subscribed  our  names  at  Cape  Cod,  the  1 ith 
of  November,  in  the  year  of  the  reign  of  our  sovereign  Lord  King  James,  of  England, 
France,  and  Ireland  the  eighteenth,  and  of  Scotland  the  fifty- fourth.  Anno  Domini 
1620. 


1951]  The  Pilgrim  Fathers  369 

them,  the  patent  they  had  being  for  Virginia,  and  not  for  New  England, 
which  belonged  to  another  government,  with  which  the  Virginia  Com- 
pany had  nothing  to  do.”  In  other  words,  it  was  a necessary  result  of  their 
landing  in  an  unexpected  location  where  their  patent  had  no  validity.  In 
form  this  “combination”  followed  the  church  covenants  with  which  Puri- 
tans were  perfectly  familiar.  The  necessity  of  such  an  agreement  had  been 
foreseen  by  John  Robinson,  who  in  his  parting  letter  of  instructions  ad- 
vised the  Pilgrims  to  let  their  “wisdom  and  godliness  appear,  not  only  in 
choosing  such  persons  as  do  entirely  love  and  will  promote  the  common 
good,  but  also  in  yielding  unto  them  all  due  honour  and  obedience  in  their 
lawful  administrations.” 

The  Compact  was  simply  an  agreement  made  by  Englishmen  who, 
finding  themselves  on  English  soil  without  any  specified  powers  of  govern- 
ment, agreed  to  govern  themselves  until  the  king’s  pleasure  should  be  sig- 
nified. There  was  not  the  slightest  thought  of  independence,  or  of  re- 
publicanism among  those  who  drew  it  up.  The  Pilgrims  were,  in  fact, 
much  more  loyal  to  the  English  monarchy  than  the  other  Puritan  colonies. 
Their  Compact  established  no  democracy,  since  the  signers  assumed  ex- 
clusive right  to  political  power  in  the  Colony,  and  it  was  not  signed  by  all 
adult  male  passengers.  The  forty-one  who  did  sign  constituted  themselves 
a political  corporation,  admitting  to  the  franchise,  individually  and  very 
sparingly,  certain  newcomers,  young  men,  and  former  bondservants.  It 
was  superseded  by  the  Peirce  patent  of  1621  from  the  Council  for  New 
England,  which  granted  the  Compact  signers  and  whomsoever  they  chose 
to  associate  with  them,  the  right  of  self  government. 

At  no  time  did  the  government  of  Plymouth  Colony  even  approach  a 
form  that  we  would  call  democratic  today.  In  1643  there  were  only  two 
hundred  and  thirty-three  freemen  or  voters  in  the  Colony,  as  compared 
with  six  hundred  and  thirty-four  “Males  that  are  able  to  bear  Arms  from 
16  Years  old  to  60  Years.”  Moreover,  from  1627  to  1639  there  was  one 
minor  group  that  had  greater  power  than  the  whole  body  of  freemen,  the 
“Old  Comers”  who  had  the  exclusive  power  to  allot  land. 

Although  the  Pilgrim  Colony  was  very  far  from  being  a democracy,  it 
was  a community  where  talent  was  promptly  recognized  and  generously 
rewarded,  no  matter  what  a man’s  background  might  be.  When  in  1627 
Bradford,  Allerton  and  Myles  Standish  were  appointed  by  the  freemen 
“Undertakers”  to  take  exclusive  charge  of  the  fur  trade  of  the  Colony  and 
complete  responsibility  for  paying  off  the  Colony’s  debt,  they  were  allowed 
to  co-opt  five  more  men  to  aid  them.  Besides  Elder  Brewster  and  Edward 
Winslow  they  chose  to  these  very  responsible  positions  John  Alden,  who 


370  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [sept. 

had  been  engaged  as  cooper  for  the  Mayflower  just  before  she  sailed;  John 
Howland,  a young  man  of  unknown  antecedents  who  came  as  Governor 
Carver’s  servant;  and  Thomas  Prence,  son  of  a London  coachmaker  who 
arrived  in  the  Fortune  a year  later  at  the  age  of  twenty-one.  Prence  was  the 
first  man  in  the  Colony  other  than  Bradford  and  Carver  to  be  elected 
Governor,  in  1634.  He  and  John  Alden  had  been  Assistants  to  the  Gover- 
nor since  1632;  and  John  Howland,  too,  was  elected  an  Assistant  in  1634. 

In  any  case  it  would  be  unhistorical  to  judge  the  political  abilities  of  the 
Pilgrims  by  the  touchstone  of  democracy.  They  amply  demonstrated  an 
ability  equal,  if  not  superior,  to  other  groups  of  English  colonists,  to  govern 
themselves  with  no  assistance  from  King,  Proprietor,  appointed  Governor, 
or  corporate  overlord. 

Whoys  Who  Among  the  Pilgrims 

In  asserting  that  the  Pilgrim  Colony  was  a homogeneous  community,  I 
am  answering  a leading  question.  It  was  pointed  out  fifty  years  ago  that 
only  thirty-seven  of  the  hundred  or  so  passengers  on  the  Mayflower  be- 
longed to  the  Pilgrim  congregation  at  Leyden.  Hence  many  have  con- 
cluded that  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  were  but  a minority  in  the  Plymouth 
Colony;  and  “debunkers”  have  gone  so  far  as  to  declare  that  only  one 
third  of  the  Mayflower  passengers  were  in  any  way  connected  with  the 
Leyden  Pilgrim  group,  the  other  two  thirds  being  persons  added  to  the 
passenger  list  by  the  London  merchants,  and  including  those  whom  Brad- 
ford describes  as  “untoward  persons  mixed  amongst  them  from  the  first.” 
It  has  even  been  asserted  that  Bradford’s  History  was  a tract  of  special 
pleading  for  a minority  of  Leyden  Pilgrims  who  trampled  ruthlessly  on  the 
majority  of  colonists. 

If  the  Pilgrims  were  indeed  able  to  bend  a heterogeneous  crowd  of  ad- 
venturers to  serving  their  high  purposes,  they  must  have  been  even  stouter 
fellows  than  we  suspected!  But,  apart  from  that,  the  question  whether  the 
Leyden  Pilgrims  were  or  were  not  the  majority  aboard  the  Mayflower 
depends  on  the  way  they  are  counted.  If  you  count  noses,  thirty-seven 
were  of  the  Leyden  group  and  sixty-five  were  not;  but  if  you  group  them 
by  families,  the  figures  tell  a very  different  story.  And  I submit  that  the 
only  sensible  way  to  analyze  the  Mayflower  passengers  is  by  families;  for 
some  of  the  Leyden  people  picked  up  relatives  or  servants  in  England,  and 
in  those  days  it  was  unheard-of  for  a dependent  kinsman  or  servant  to 
differ  in  religious  or  political  views  from  his  master.  On  board  the  May- 
flower there  were  twenty-six  heads  of  families,  of  whom  exactly  half  came 
from  Leyden;  and  twelve  boys  or  men  without  families,  of  whom  five 


1951]  The  Pilgrim  F athers  3 7 1 

came  from  Leyden.  The  great  sickness  of  the  first  winter  at  Plymouth  so 
thinned  the  ranks  that  in  the  spring  there  were  left  twelve  heads  of  families, 
again  split  fifty-fifty  between  Leyden  and  non-Leyden,  and  four  single 
men,  none  of  whom  had  belonged  to  the  Leyden  congregation.  But  three 
of  the  six  surviving  non-Leyden  heads  of  families  were  Hopkins,  Standish, 
and  Warren,  who  became  pillars  of  the  Pilgrim  state;  and  the  four  sur- 
viving bachelors  were  the  famous  John  Alden,  Gilbert  Winslow  the 
brother  of  Edward  Winslow,  Gardiner  who  soon  returned  to  England, 
and  a six-year-old  boy.  This  seems  to  me  not  a very  substantial  basis  for  the 
claim  that  a majority  of  the  Mayjlower  passengers  were  indifferent  or 
hostile  persons,  who  were  kept  down  by  a bigoted  minority. 

Certainly  the  Mayflower’s  passenger  list  included  a few  “wicked  persons 
and  profane  people”  (as  Bradford  describes  them)  like  John  Billington, 
who  was  hanged  for  murder.  Others,  good,  bad  and  indifferent,  came  over 
in  the  Fortune , the  Anne } and  the  Little  James , in  1621—1623.  Toward 
otherwise-minded  persons,  the  Pilgrims,  considering  that  the  Plymouth 
Colony  was  their  colony  and  that  there  was  plenty  of  room  for  the  other- 
wise-minded elsewhere  in  New  England,  behaved  with  singular  kindness, 
forbearance,  and  justice.  Bradford’s  story  of  John  Lyford,  the  lewd  parson 
whom  the  merchant  adventurers  sent  over,  is  a diverting  instance  of  the 
Pilgrims’  Christian  way  of  dealing  with  offenders.  As  with  him,  so  with 
others,  the  greedy  and  the  factious  showed  themselves  up,  decamped  or 
were  expelled,  came  to  grief,  straggled  back  to  Plymouth,  begged  forgive- 
ness and  fresh  assistance,  received  both,  betrayed  their  benefactors  again, 
and  again  came  to  grief.  The  Pilgrims  always  forgave  the  injury,  and  re- 
covered from  the  wound. 

“ American  Way  of  Life ” 

One  price  the  Pilgrims  have  to  pay  for  their  popularity  is  the  attribu- 
tion to  them  of  many  things  or  trends  popular  now,  but  of  which  they 
knew  nothing  and  cared  less.  Democracy  is  one  of  these.  The  log  cabin  is 
another;  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  built  frame  houses  and  knew  nothing  of  the 
log  cabin,  which  was  introduced  to  America  by  the  Swedes  on  the  Dela- 
ware. Religious  toleration  is  a third;  the  Pilgrims  did  not  believe  in  it,  and 
Plymouth  Colony  passed  legislation  against  Quakers  and  other  Dissenters 
just  as  did  Massachusetts  Bay,  Virginia,  and  most  of  the  other  colonies, 
English,  French  or  Spanish.  But  the  most  common  false  attribution  of  to- 
day is  that  the  Pilgrims  invented  what  is  vaguely  called  The  American 
Way  of  Life.  This  notion  is  based  on  a famous  passage  in  Bradford’s  His- 
tory in  which  he  describes  how  their  “common  course  and  condition”  was 


37  2 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [sept. 

modified  by  individual  land  holdings,  and  how  this  increased  food  produc- 
tion and  incidentally  proved  the  “vanity  of  that  conceit  of  Plato’s  . . . that 
the  taking  away  of  property  and  bringing  in  community  unto  a common- 
wealth, would  make  them  happy  and  flourishing;  as  if  they  were  wiser 
than  God.” 

Actually,  it  was  not  communism  that  the  Pilgrims  gave  up,  and  not 
laissez-faire  individualism  that  they  adopted.  The  capitalists  who  provided 
the  funds  for  the  Mayflower  and  her  voyage  had  imposed  on  them  a very 
severe  form  of  servitude.  They  had  to  agree  that  all  colonists  work  for  a 
common  fund  for  seven  years,  during  which  they  would  receive  only  bare 
subsistence;  and  at  the  end  of  that  time  all  property  acquired  and  land  cul- 
tivated would  be  divided  equally  among  capitalists  and  colonists,  the  Eng- 
lish shareholder  who  had  contributed  about  £12  receiving  the  same  as  a 
colonist  who  had  worked  for  seven  years.  This  system  was  not  of  the 
Pilgrims’  choosing;  it  had  been  tried  earlier  in  Virginia  and  had  failed 
there ; but  it  was  the  only  way  these  almost  penniless  people  could  obtain 
funds  for  an  expensive  migration  to  America. 

The  grant  of  allotments  did  not  end  hardship  and  famine  at  Plymouth; 
Bradford  tells  how  the  following  fall,  when  a ship  came  in  with  some  new- 
comers, they  burst  into  tears  on  seeing  how  thin  and  ragged  the  Pilgrims 
were.  The  real  economic  salvation  of  the  Plymouth  Colony  was  the  es- 
tablishment of  Massachusetts  Bay  in  1630,  which  gave  the  Pilgrims  a 
market  for  their  cattle. 

Nor  in  other  ways  did  the  Pilgrims  approach  modern  American  individ- 
ualism. They  regulated  wages  as  well  as  prices;  they  punished  people  for 
idleness  as  well  as  for  drunkenness  and  Sabbath  breaking;  they  forbade 
anyone  to  trade  with  the  Indians  unless  he  belonged  to  the  inner  govern- 
ing body  known  as  the  Undertakers,  and  they  restricted  freedom  of  move- 
ment. Nobody  could  leave  his  home,  buy  land  and  settle  elsewhere  without 
permission  of  the  Court.  Typical  items  from  the  Plymouth  Colony  Rec- 
ords are  the  following: 

Whereas  Edward  Holman  hath  been  observed  to  frequent  the  house  of  Thom- 
as Shrive  at  unseasonable  times  of  night,  and  at  other  times,  . . . The  Court  have 
therefore  ordered  that  the  said  Edward  Holman  be  warned  by  the  Constable  of 
Plymouth  that  he  henceforth  do  no  more  frequent  or  commune  at  the  house  of 
the  said  Shrive,  nor  that  the  wife  of  the  said  Shrive  do  frequent  the  house  or  com- 
pany of  the  said  Holman.  (4  May  1652) 

Mr.  Stephen  Hopkins,  for  suffering  servants  and  others  to  sit  drinking  in  his 
house  and  to  play  at  shuffle  board,  and  such  like  misdemeanors  is  therefore  fined 
40  shillings  (2  Oct.  1637).  (Later,  the  same  man  is)  presented  for  selling  beer  at 
2 pence  per  quart,  not  worth  a penny. 


1951]  The  Pilgrim  F athers  373 

Web  Adey  was  proved  to  have  profaned  divers  Lord’s  days  by  working  sundry 
times  upon  them,  and  had  been  for  the  like  offence  formerly  set  in  the  stocks,  and 
was  again  found  guilty,  therefore  was  censured  to  be  severely  whipped  at  the 
post.  (7  July  1638) 

John  Stockbridge  of  Scituate  is  presented  for  disgraceful  speeches  tending  to 
the  contempt  of  the  government,  and  for  jeering  speeches  to  them  that  did  re- 
prove him  for  it.  (5  June  1638). 

Mowers  that  have  taken  excessive  wages,  viz.  3 shillings  per  diem,  are  to  be 
presented  if  they  make  not  restitution.  (29  August  1643) 

Whereas  Joseph  Ramsden  hath  lived  long  in  the  woods,  in  an  uncivil  way,  in 
the  woods,  with  his  wife  alone,  whereby  great  inconveniences  have  followed,  the 
Court  have  ordered  that  he  repair  down  to  some  neighbourhood  betwdxt  this  and 
October  next,  or  that  then  his  house  be  pulled  down.  (3  June  1656) 

All  this  was  in  accord  with  the  general  social  and  economic  notions  of 
the  period.  The  Pilgrim  state,  judging  from  its  records,  was  just  as 
“nosey,”  interfering  and  regulating  as  the  other  English  colonies. 

The  M ay flower  Lands 

Enough  of  these  controversies.  Let  us  return  to  the  events  of  1620.  On 
Friday  afternoon,  10  November  in  their  calendar  (the  20th  in  ours),  the 
Mayflower  is  making  the  best  of  her  way  around  the  back  side  of  Cape  Cod 
to  the  harbor  now  called  Provincetown,  within  the  tip  of  the  Cape.  Night- 
fall finds  her  off  Peaked  Hill  Bar.  The  weather  is  clear  and  cold;  the 
moon,  in  her  last  quarter,  rises  shortly  after  one  o’clock,  lighting  up  the 
white  sand  dunes  of  Cape  Race.  Most  of  the  passengers  are  below,  the 
“graveyard  watch”  has  charge,  and  on  the  high  poop  deck  Master  Jones 
and  Master’s  Mate  Clark  walk  briskly  to  and  fro,  conferring  every  now 
and  then,  watching  the  sails,  peering  into  the  binnacle,  looking  up  at  the 
stars,  and  conning  the  helmsman  in  the  steerage.  The  watch  keep  warm 
by  frequently  trimming  braces,  tacks  and  sheets  in  order  to  get  the  most 
out  of  light  airs  from  the  south  and  west;  and  although  the  Mayflower 
with  her  foul  bottom  can  make  but  a knot  or  two  under  these  conditions, 
the  flood  tide  helps  her  along.  Every  quarter-hour  the  leadsman  in  the 
chains  heaves  the  hand-lead,  and  sings  out  the  marks  and  deeps.  It  is  a 
night  of  watchfulness,  but  not  of  danger;  of  quiet  anticipation  among  the 
passengers  over  the  prospect  of  landing  on  the  morrow;  a night  of  thank- 
fulness after  their  narrow  escape  from  the  shoals. 

During  the  small  hours  the  Mayflozver  stands  off  and  on,  in  order  not 
to  lose  touch  with  the  Cape.  Daylight  breaking  around  six  o’clock  on  Satur- 
day 1 1 November  finds  her  on  a southeasterly  course  working  in  by  Wood 


3 74  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [sept. 

End  with  a fair  tide;  at  seven  o’clock,  the  sun  rises  red  and  clear  above 
the  Truro  hills;  and  by  the  time  eight  bells  are  struck,  and  the  watch  is 
changed,  the  Mayjlower  has  weathered  Long  Point,  and  is  sailing  free, 
headed  northeasterly  for  Provincetown  Harbor. 

This  is  the  time  that  Carver  and  Brewster,  Bradford  and  Winslow 
have  chosen  for  signing  the  Mayflower  Compact.  Breakfast  has  been 
eaten,  a psalm  of  praise  and  thanksgiving  sung  by  all,  and  an  extempore 
prayer  said  by  Elder  Brewster.  The  sea  is  smooth,  the  weather  fair,  and 
everyone  feeling  fine;  it  will  be  an  hour  yet  before  the  course  has  to  be 
altered  and  final  preparations  made  for  anchoring.  So  at  this  opportune 
moment  the  leaders  summon  the  other  men  into  the  great  cabin,  read  the 
Compact  which  they  had  drafted  the  day  before,  and  request  everyone  to 
sign  or  make  his  mark.  After  that  is  done,  and  the  generalty  dismissed,  we 
may  suppose  a little  quiet  handshaking  among  the  leaders,  and  a few  re- 
marks like  “Thank  God,  Governor,  that’s  over!”  and  “I  never  expected 
John  Billington  to  sign — it  must  have  been  your  prayer  that  brought  him 
to  it,  Elder!” 

It  is  now  nine  or  ten  o’clock.  The  bulwarks  are  so  crowded  with  pas- 
sengers eager  to  look  upon  their  new  Land  of  Canaan  that  the  mate  has  to 
order  them  to  stand  clear  of  the  tackle,  that  he  may  work  his  ship.  About  a 
mile  off  the  end  of  Long  Point,  Master  Jones  orders  the  ship  wore,  brails 
up  the  lower  courses,  and  hauls  sharp  on  the  port  tack  for  the  inner  har- 
bor, feeling  his  way  with  armed  lead  to  the  best  holding  ground.  It  would 
be  about  ten  or  eleven  o’clock  that  the  Master  orders  the  square  spritsail 
handed,  the  mizzen  sheet  hauled  flat,  and  the  foretopsail  lowered  and 
clewed  up.  Mate  Clark  cries  “hard  down ! ” to  the  helmsman,  who  answers 
“hard  down,  sir,”  and  presently  “helm’s  a-lee ! ” ; and  with  main  top- 
sail aback  to  check  her  way,  Mayjlower  turns  into  the  wind  a furlong  from 
the  shore.  At  the  right  moment  the  best  bower  anchor  is  let  go,  and  the 
thick  hemp  cable,  which  the  seamen  have  been  flaking  on  the  forecastle 
head  since  daybreak,  is  carefully  paid  out  as  the  anchor  fluke  bites  into 
unfamiliar  bottom,  and  the  ship  begins  to  make  sternway.  The  cable  is 
snubbed  on  the  capstan;  and  now,  as  Bradford  notes  in  correct  nautical 
language,  “they  rode  in  safety.”  The  Mayjlower  is  snugged  down  in  the 
best  and  most  sheltered  anchorage  of  the  Great  Harbor  of  Cape  Cod. 

Now  the  ship’s  longboat  is  lowered  over  the  side,  and  an  armed  land- 
ing party  of  fifteen  or  sixteen  rows  her  ashore,  landing  on  the  point  at  the 
southern  end  of  the  present  Provincetown.  Bradford  tells  how  they 
promptly  “fell  upon  their  knees  and  blessed  the  God  of  heaven,  who  had 
brought  them  over  the  vast  and  furious  ocean,  and  delivered  them  from 


1951]  The  Pilgrim  Fathers  375 

all  the  perils  and  miseries  thereof,  again  to  set  their  feet  on  the  firm  and 
stable  earth,  their  proper  element.  . . .” 

“What  Could  Now  Sustain  Them 

For  all  that,  the  Pilgrims  were  in  a pretty  grim  situation.  The  most 
skilful  orator  of  today  could  not  even  approach  Bradford’s  vivid  image  of 
their  plight,  and  the  spirit  in  which  the  Pilgrims  met  it: 

. . . Here  I cannot  but  stay  and  make  a pause,  and  stand  half  amazed  at  this 
poor  people’s  present  condition;  and  so  I think  will  the  reader  too,  when  he  well 
considers  the  same.  Being  thus  passed  the  vast  ocean,  and  a sea  of  troubles  before 
in  their  preparation  (as  may  be  remembered  by  that  which  went  before),  they 
had  now  no  friends  to  welcome  them,  nor  inns  to  entertain  or  refresh  their 
weatherbeaten  bodies,  no  houses  or  much  less  towns  to  repair  to,  to  seek  for  suc- 
cour. . . . And  for  the  season  it  was  winter,  and  they  that  know  the  winters  of 
that  country  know  them  to  be  sharp  and  violent,  and  subject  to  cruel  and  fierce 
storms,  dangerous  to  travel  to  known  places,  much  more  to  search  an  unknown 
coast.  Besides,  what  could  they  see  but  a hideous  and  desolate  wilderness,  full  of 
wild  beasts  and  wild  men?  Neither  could  they,  as  it  were,  go  up  to  the  top  of 
Pisgah  to  view  from  this  wilderness  a more  goodly  country  to  feed  their  hopes;  for 
which  way  soever  they  turned  their  eyes  (save  upward  to  the  heavens)  they  could 
have  little  solace  or  content  in  respect  of  any  outward  objects.  For  summer  be- 
ing done,  all  things  stand  upon  them  with  a weatherbeaten  face;  and  the  whole 
country,  full  of  woods  and  thickets,  represented  a wild  and  savage  hue.  If  they 
looked  behind  them,  there  was  the  mighty  ocean  which  they  had  passed,  and  was 
now  as  a main  bar  and  gulf  to  separate  them  from  all  the  civil  parts  of  the  world. 
If  it  be  said  they  had  a ship  to  succour  them,  it  is  true;  but  what  heard  they  daily 
from  the  master  and  company?  . . . that  if  they  got  not  a place  in  time,  they  would 
turn  them  and  their  goods  ashore  and  leave  them.  ...  It  is  true,  indeed,  the  af- 
fections and  love  of  their  brethren  at  Leyden  was  cordial  and  entire  towards 
them,  but  they  had  little  power  to  help  them.  . . . What  could  now  sustain  them 
but  the  Spirit  of  God  and  His  grace?  May  not  and  ought  not  the  children  of 
these  fathers  rightly  say:  “Our  fathers  were  Englishmen  which  came  over  this 
great  ocean,  and  were  ready  to  perish  in  this  wilderness;  but  they  cried  unto  the 
Lord,  and  He  heard  their  voice,  and  looked  on  their  adversity,  etc.  Let  them 
therefore  praise  the  Lord,  because  He  is  good,  and  His  mercies  endure  forever. 
. . . Let  them  confess  before  the  Lord  His  lovingkindness  and  His  wonderful 
works  before  the  sons  of  men.” 

Bradford,  if  anything,  understates  the  situation.  The  Pilgrims  knew 
nothing  of  the  coast  they  had  reached,  except  what  John  Smith  had  writ- 
ten in  his  Description  oj  New  England . Supplies  on  the  Mayflower  were 
gravely  depleted  after  her  ten  weeks’  voyage;  and  there  was  no  oppor- 


376  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [sept. 

tunity  to  produce  food  for  another  nine  months.  Stephen  Hopkins  had  per- 
haps been  in  Virginia;  but  the  others  had  never  been  anywhere  except 
England  and  Holland.  Simple  folk,  farmers  and  artisans,  they  were  un- 
used to  handling  firearms,  ignorant  alike  of  fishing  and  fur-trading,  un- 
fitted by  training  and  temperament  to  cope  with  pioneer  life  on  the  edge 
of  this  savage  continent.  No  group  of  Englishmen,  Frenchmen,  or  Dutch- 
men arrived  on  our  shores  in  the  colonial  era  at  so  unfavorable  a season  or 
so  ill  equipped;  few  were  so  isolated  from  possible  succor.  Yet  none  came 
through  so  well. 

What  other  causes  can  we  assign  for  this,  than  the  Pilgrims’  profound 
faith  in  God,  and  God’s  response  to  their  prayers?  Not  that  they  failed  to 
help  themselves: — innately  capable,  though  inexperienced  people,  they  did 
all  that  men  could  do,  but  something  more  was  needed,  and  that  they  had 
— God’s  assistance.  His  hand  may  constantly  be  seen  in  their  history.  The 
“first  encounter”  with  the  natives  (at  which  the  Pilgrims  made  the  sur- 
prising discovery  that  the  Indians  were  more  afraid  of  them  than  they  were 
of  the  Indians)  ; the  caches  of  corn  found  buried  in  the  sand;  the  shallop 
weathering  a December  snowstorm  and  finding  shelter  in  Plymouth  Har- 
bor. When  a sort  of  scoutmaster  was  needed  to  teach  these  English  rustics 
the  ways  of  the  New  World,  a lone  Indian  marches  into  their  settlement 
crying  “Welcome,  Englishmen!”,  and  introduces  to  them  Squanto,  who 
teaches  them  how  to  plant  corn,  snare  fish,  and  trap  beaver.  Then  there 
were  the  windfalls  of  corn  from  Virginia  and  other  unexpected  quarters 
when  famine  was  impending;  the  mysterious  voice  that  warned  them  of  a 
fire  in  the  storehouse;  the  “sweet  and  gentle  showers”  that  came  out  of 
a clear  sky  just  in  time  to  save  one  year’s  harvest;  the  turning  back  of  a 
ship  sent  to  foreclose  the  Colony  for  the  merchant  creditors.  Of  the  source 
of  these  interventions  Bradford  is  so  certain  that  he  simply  remarks,  as  they 
occur,  “Behold  now  another  Providence  of  God!  ” 

Pilgrim  Diplomacy 

In  handling  the  Indians,  our  Pilgrim  Fathers  were  notably  successful, 
avoiding  alike  the  harshness  and  the  heedlessness  which  had  cost  so  many 
English  lives  in  other  colonies.  In  his  dealings  with  the  natives,  William 
Bradford,  the  farmer’s  boy  from  Austerfield,  played  the  part  of  a frontier 
Richelieu.  Squanto  and  another  friendly  Indian,  Hobbamock,  who  drifted 
into  Plymouth,  were  played  off  against  each  other.  The  Governor  “seemed 
to  countenance  the  one,  and  Captain  Standish  the  other,  by  which  they  had 
better  intelligence,  and  made  them  both  more  diligent.”  The  warlike 
Narragansetts  send  a rattlesnake  skin  by  way  of  challenge;  the  Governor 


1951]  The  Pilgrim  Fathers  377 

returns  it  filled  with  bullets,  and  the  Narragansetts  decide  not  to  continue 
the  correspondence.  Winslow  and  Hampden  visit  the  friendly  Massasoit, 
find  him  at  death’s  door  after  an  unusually  heavy  bout  of  gluttony,  and  ad- 
minister the  favorite  physic  of  Dr.  Fuller,  the  Pilgrim  physician,  with 
such  immediate  and  surprising  effects  that  Massasoit  becomes  their  friend 
for  life,  and  warns  them  of  an  Indian  plot  to  come  down  and  wipe  out 
Plymouth.  When  the  miserable  beachcombers  whom  Weston  had  sent 
over,  and  who  on  sundry  occasions  had  made  themselves  a danger  and  a 
nuisance  to  the  Pilgrims,  were  reported  to  be  in  the  last  extremities  at 
Wessagusset,  insulted  and  tormented  by  the  Neponset  Indians,  the  Pil- 
grims might  well  have  taken  the  short  view  of  “good  riddance  to  bad 
rubbish.”  But,  writes  Bradford,  “we  thought  (both  by  nature  and  con- 
science) we  were  bound  to  deliver”  them.  Accordingly  Captain  Standish 
marched  with  the  Pilgrim  army  of  eight  men  to  Wessagusset,  bearded  four 
Indians  in  one  of  the  English  huts  there,  killed  Peksuot  with  his  own  knife, 
and  then  despatched  two  other  Indians.  There  was  no  more  trouble  from 
the  Neponsets. 

On  the  one  occasion  when  Pilgrim  diplomacy  faltered,  “another  Provi- 
dence of  God”  saved  them.  Squanto,  it  seems,  had  made  himself  obnoxious 
to  other  Indians  by  exploiting  his  friendship  with  the  English,  pretending  a 
power  to  spread  the  plague,  and  sounding  a false  alarm  of  impending  treach- 
ery by  Massasoit,  who  when  he  heard  of  it,  sent  a messenger  to  demand 
that  Squanto  be  surrendered  up,  as  one  of  his  subjects.  Bradford  refused; 
but  the  messenger  shortly  returned,  more  insistent,  accompanied  by  “divers 
others”  to  implement  the  demand,  and  bearing  “many  beavers’  skins”  to 
cover  the  Puritan  conscience!  Governor  Bradford  was  in  a quandary.  It 
was  wrong  to  surrender  Squanto  to  certain  death;  but  the  Pilgrims  were 
dependent  for  their  safety  on  Massasoit’s  friendship,  and  the  food  supply 
was  low.  Now,  at  the  very  instant  when  the  Governor  had  made  the  bad 
decision  to  deliver  up  Squanto,  a strange  boat  was  seen  to  be  crossing  the 
harbor.  Having  heard  rumors  of  French  enemies  approaching,  and  fear- 
ing a “combination  between  the  savages  and  them,  the  Governor  told  the 
Indians  he  would  first  know  what  boat  that  was  ere  he  would  deliver  him 
into  their  custody.  But  being  mad  with  rage,  and  impatient  at  delay,  they 
departed  in  great  heat.”  The  boat  proved  to  be  the  tender  of  a friendly 
English  fisherman  who  brought  news  of  a food  supply  at  Damiscove  Is- 
land in  Maine.  Its  timely  appearance  saved  Bradford  from  a grave  mis- 
take in  diplomacy;  for  Massasoit  soon  recovered  from  his  rage  against 
Squanto,  who  lived  to  serve  as  Bradford’s  guide  and  interpreter  in  his  ex- 
pedition around  Cape  Cod. 


3 7 8 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [sept. 


Food  and  Frink 

Food  was  the  first  difficulty  during  the  early  years.  Like  all  English- 
men of  the  time,  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  felt  starved  without  their  favorite 
provender  of  wheat  bread,  beef,  and  beer;  yet  time  and  again  they  were 
reduced  to  short  commons  of  corn  bread,  shellfish,  and  water.  As  Bill  Nye 
wrote  in  his  comic  History  of  the  United  States , “The  people  were  kept  busy 
digging  clams  to  sustain  life  in  order  to  raise  Indian  corn  enough  to  give 
them  sufficient  strength  to  pull  clams  enough  the  following  winter  to  get 
them  through  till  the  next  corn  crop  should  give  them  strength  to  dig  for 
clams  again ! ” 

Cargo  space  in  the  vessels  of  that  time  was  small,  and  the  voyages  so 
long  that  every  fresh  arrival  of  immigrants  meant  more  mouths  to  feed, 
with  less  food  to  go  round;  yet  always,  when  the  Colony  seemed  to  be  at 
the  last  extremity,  food  was  procured  from  friendly  Indians,  fishermen  or 
casual  traders.  No  cattle  reached  Plymouth  until  the  spring  of  1624;  yet 
children  were  born  and  weaned  without  milk,  and  men  fought  and  toiled 
without  beef.  Winslow  alludes  with  some  scorn  to  those  who  “return  with 
their  mouths  full  of  clamours”  because  in  New  England  “they  must  drink 
water  and  want  many  delicates.”  To  complaints  that  “the  water  is  not 
wholesome,”  Bradford  admitted  that  it  was  “not  so  wholesome  as  the 
good  beer  and  wine  in  London  (which  they  so  dearly  love)”  but  insisted 
that  “for  water  it  is  as  good  as  any  in  the  world  (for  aught  we  know)  and 
it  is  wholesome  enough  to  us  that  can  be  content  therewith.”  Yet  the 
absence  of  beer  evidently  irked  the  good  Governor,  for  in  his  touching 
tribute  to  Elder  Brewster,  he  meditates  on  the  Providence  of  God  that 
allowed  so  many  Pilgrim  Fathers  to  attain  great  age.  “It  must  needs  be 
more  than  ordinary,”  he  writes,  “and  above  natural  reason  that  so  it  should 
be;  for  it  is  found  in  experience  that  change  of  air,  famine,  or  unwhole- 
some food,  much  drinking  of  water, . . . are  enemies  to  health.  . . . And  yet 
of  all  these  things  they  had  a large  part  and  suffered  deeply  in  the  same. 
. . . What  was  it,  then,  that  upheld  them?  It  was  God’s  visitation  that  pre- 
served their  spirits.” 

<c Man  Lives  Not  By  Bread  Only ” 

And  when  all  is  said  and  done,  this  conclusion  of  the  faithful  Governor 
seems  to  me  to  express  the  real  significance  of  the  Pilgrim  Colony.  They 
were  few  in  number  and  poor  in  the  goods  of  this  world.  They  evolved 
few  institutions  of  any  value  in  American  development.  They  were  not 
great  shipbuilders,  successful  fishermen  or  fur  trappers,  or  notable  farmers. 


1951]  The  Pilgrim  Fathers  379 

They  were  not  of  gentle  or  noble  blood.  Yet  those  simple  folk  were  exalted 
to  the  stature  of  statesmen  and  prophets  in  their  limited  sphere,  because 
they  firmly  believed,  and  so  greatly  dared,  and  firmly  endured.  Their  an- 
nals illustrate  a great  and  universal  law  that  faith  in  God  brings  God’s  as- 
sistance. The  Pilgrims’  faith  brought  them  triumphant  through  the  perils 
of  the  sea  and  the  wilderness,  and  created  a great  spiritual  tradition  that 
will  bear  fruit  so  long  as  men  read  the  Pilgrim  story  and  believe  in  the 
God  in  whom  they  believed. 

Bradford,  after  telling  of  all  the  “crosses,  troubles,  fears,  wants  and  sor- 
rows” that  they  had  been  through  for  thirty  years,  and  the  relative  se- 
curity that  they  finally  attained,  writes,  “What  was  it  then  that  upheld 
them?  It  was  God’s  visitation  that  preserved  their  spirits.”  And  he  con- 
cludes with  a message  of  profound  significance  for  us,  in  this  era  of  un- 
certainty and  tribulation: 

God,  it  seems,  would  have  all  men  to  behold  and  observe  such  mercies  and 
works  of  His  providence  as  these  towards  His  people,  that  they  in  like  cases  might 
be  encouraged  to  depend  on  God  in  their  trials,  and  also  bless  His  name  when 
they  see  His  goodness  towards  others.  Man  lives  not  by  bread  only.  ...  It  is  not 
by  good  and  dainty  fare,  by  peace  and  rest  and  heart’s  ease  in  enjoying  the  con- 
tentments and  good  things  of  the  world  only,  that  preserves  health  and  prolongs 
life.  God  in  such  examples  would  have  the  world  see  and  behold  that  He  can  do 
it  without  them. 


Annual  Meeting 

November,  1951 

THE  Annual  Meeting  of  the  Society  was  held  at  the 
Algonquin  Club,  No.  217  Commonwealth  Avenue,  Bos- 
ton, on  Thursday,  21  November  1951,  at  half  after  six 
o’clock  in  the  evening.  As  the  President,  Augustus  Peabody 
Loring,  Jr.,  had  died  on  1 October  1951,  Vice-President  Mori- 
son  took  the  chair. 

With  the  consent  of  those  present,  the  reading  of  the  records 
of  the  last  Stated  Meeting  was  omitted. 

Mr.  Alfred  Porter  Putnam,  of  Salem,  was  elected  to  Resi- 
dent Membership,  and  Captain  William  Robert  Chaplin,  an 
Elder  Brother  of  the  Trinity  House,  London,  was  elected  to 
Corresponding  Membership  in  the  Society. 

The  Treasurer  submitted  his  Annual  Report  as  follows: 

1 


Report  of  the  Treasurer 

In  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  the  By-laws,  the  Treasurer 
submits  his  Annual  Report  for  the  year  ending  14  November  1951. 


Statement  of  Assets  and  Funds,  14  November  1951 


ASSETS 

Cash : 

Income 

Loan  to  Principal 
Investments  at  Book  Value: 

Bonds  (Market  Value  $151,718.44) 

Stocks  (Market  Value  $200,667.75) 

Savings  Bank  Deposit 

Total  Assets 


$15,166.47 

12,437.26  $2,729.21 


$155,151.50 

105,030.90 

3,082.20 


263,264.60 

$265,993.81 


FUNDS 

Funds 

Unexpended  Income 
Total  Funds 


$245,285.14 

20,708.67 

$265,993.81 


38i 


1951]  Report  of  the  Treasurer 


Income  Cash  Receipts  and  Disbursements 

Balance,  14  November  1950  $15,173.52 

RECEIPTS: 


Dividends 

Interest 

Annual  Assessments 
Sales  of  Publications 
Sale  of  Waste  Paper 


*9-333-04 
3.302.39 
715.00 
3 10.00 

97-50  I3J58.I3 


Total  Receipts  ok  Income 

DISBURSEMENTS: 

Publications 

New  England  Quarterly 
Editor’s  Salary 
Secretarial  Expense 
Annual  Dinner 

Postage,  Office  Supplies  and  Miscellaneous 
Notices  and  Expenses  of  Meetings 
Storage 

Auditing  Services 
Massachusetts  Historical  Society 
General  Expense 
Safe  Deposit  Box 

Interest  on  Sarah  Louise  Edes  Fund  added  to  Prin- 
cipal 

Interest  on  Albert  Matthews  Fund  added  to  Prin- 
cipal 

Total  Disbursements  of  Income 
Balance  of  Income,  14  November  1951 


$4,226.46 

3,000.00 

1,500.00 

900.00 
670.41 
393-15 

350-10 

300.72 

1 25.00 

100.00 

43-80 

24.00 

1,850.53 

281.01 


$28,931.65 


$13,765.18 

$15,166.47 


James  M.  Hunnewell 

T reasurer 


Report  of  the  Auditing  Committee 

The  undersigned,  a Committee  appointed  to  examine  the  accounts  of  the 
Treasurer  for  the  year  ended  14  November  1951,  have  attended  to  their 
duty  by  employing  Messrs.  Stewart,  Watts  and  Bollong,  Public  Account- 
ants and  Auditors,  who  have  made  an  audit  of  the  accounts  and  examined 
the  securities  on  deposit  in  Box  91  in  the  New  England  Trust  Company. 


382  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [nov. 

We  herewith  submit  their  report,  which  has  been  examined  and  ac- 
cepted by  the  Committee. 

Willard  G.  Cogswell 
Arthur  S.  Pier 

A uditing  C ommittee 

The  Treasurer’s  Report  was  accepted  and  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Publication. 

On  behalf  of  the  Committee  appointed  to  nominate  officers 
for  the  ensuing  year  the  following  list  was  presented  5 and  a 
ballot  having  been  taken,  these  gentlemen  were  unanimously 
elected: 

President  Hon.  Robert  Walcott 

Vice-Presidents  Samuel  Eliot  Morison 

Richard  Mott  Gummere 

Recording  Secretary  Robert  Earle  Moody 

C orresfondmg  Secretary  Zechariah  Chafee,  Jr. 

Treasurer  J ames  Melville  Hunnewell 

Member  oj  the  Council  for  Three  Years  Reginald  Fitz 

After  the  meeting  was  dissolved,  dinner  was  served.  The 
guests  of  the  Society  were  Mr.  Arthur  Stanton  Burnham,  Major 
General  C.  G.  Helmick,  Mr.  Frank  Mitchell,  Rear  Admiral 
Hewlett  Thebaud,  Mr.  T.  H.  Thomas,  Mr.  Norman  Dahl.  The 
Reverend  Henry  Wilder  Foote  said  grace. 

After  dinner,  the  Annual  Report  of  the  Council  was  read  by 
Mr.  Zechariah  Chafee,  Jr. 

Report  of  the  Council 

/"TP'HE  Society  held  four  meetings  during  the  year.  The  annual  dinner 
took  place  on  21  November  1950,  and  there  were  three  afternoon 
meetings.  On  28  December  1950,  at  the  Club  of  Odd  Volumes,  Mr. 
Robert  Peabody  Bellows  read  a paper,  “Whither  Away?  The  Search  for 
the  Frame  of  the  First  King’s  Chapel.”  On  15  February  1951,  at  the 
same  Club,  Mr.  Wendell  S.  Hadlock  read  a paper,  “The  Islesford  Muse- 
um and  Some  of  Its  Aspects.”  On  26  April  1951  we  met  in  the  evening 
at  No.  2 Gloucester  Street  as  the  guest  of  the  President,  who  was  lament- 
ably kept  away  by  illness.  The  two  papers  were  read  by  Rev.  Joseph  R. 


1951]  Report  of  the  Council  383 

Freese,  S.J.,  on  “Writs  of  Assistance,”  and  by  Mr.  Jerome  D.  Green,  on 
“Milford  Haven:  a Colony  of  Massachusetts  in  Great  Britain.” 

Volume  35  of  the  Publications , covering  transactions  of  meetings  for  the 
years  1942—1946,  appeared  in  the  summer.  Frederick  B.  Allis,  Jr.,  is 
completing  the  editing  of  the  Maine  land  grant  papers  left  to  the  Society 
hy  George  Nixon  Black  of  Ellsworth.  To  these  he  is  adding  many  valu- 
able documents  from  the  Bingham  estate  and  elsewhere,  so  that  the  vol- 
umes of  Collections , which  will  be  our  next  publication,  will  contain  new 
and  valuable  material  concerning  the  District  of  Maine.  The  Council  has 
recently  recommended  a proposal  by  Mr.  Sumner  C.  Powell  to  edit  a vol- 
ume of  Collections  containing  the  seventeenth-century  records  of  the  town 
meetings  of  Sudbury,  Massachusetts,  with  annotations  concerning  the  set- 
tlement of  the  town  and  the  systems  of  land  tenure  that  were  familiar  to 
the  settlers. 

The  Society  has  continued  its  support  of  the  New  England  Quarterly  of 
which  it  is  joint  publisher. 

The  adoption  of  new  By-laws  at  the  last  Annual  Meeting,  which  made 
important  changes  in  the  classes  of  membership,  resulted  in  the  election  of 
a number  of  new  members  and  the  transfer  of  a number  of  old  members 
to  new  classes.  The  following  gentlemen  have  been  elected  in  the  past 
year: 

Resident: 

John  Phillips  Coolidge 
Bertram  Kimball  Little 
David  Britton  Little 
David  Pingree  Wheatland 
Stephen  Wheatland 
Gordon  Thaxter  Banks 
Buchanan  Charles 
I.  Bernard  Cohen 
Dennis  Aloysius  Dooley 
William  Henry  Harrison 
David  Milton  Kendall  McKibbin 
David  Thompson  Watson  McCord 
Richard  Donald  Pierce 
Vernon  Dale  Tate 
Stephen  Thomas  Riley 
Robert  Dale  Richardson 
Douglas  Swaim  Byers 
Earle  Williams  Newton 


3 84  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [nov. 

C orresf  ending : 

Bernhard  Knollenberg 
Marion  Vernon  Brewington 
Henry  Beston 

N on- Resident: 

Arthur  Adams 

Honorary: 

Julian  Parks  Boyd 
Douglas  Southall  Freeman 

With  the  abolition  of  the  ancestral  requirement  all  Associate  Members 
were  transferred  to  Resident  or  Non-Resident  Membership,  while  other 
changes  in  the  By-laws  resulted  in  the  transfer  of  several  Resident  and 
Corresponding  Members  to  the  new  class  of  Non-Resident  Members. 

With  great  regret  we  report  that  seven  members  have  died  during  the 
year. 

Ogden  Codman,  Resident,  1908,  Corresponding,  1946,  was  one  of 
our  earliest  members  at  the  time  of  his  death  on  8 January  1951  in 
France  where  he  had  lived  for  many  years.  Distinguished  both  as  an  ar- 
chitect and  as  a student  of  the  history  of  architecture,  he  had  a great  knowl- 
edge of  the  history  of  Boston,  its  buildings  and  its  families. 

Harold  Hitchings  Burbank,  Resident,  1927,  died  7 February 
1951  in  his  sixty-fourth  year.  Going  from  Dartmouth  to  Harvard,  he 
became  a Doctor  of  Philosophy  in  1915  and  was  at  once  made  Chairman 
of  the  Board  of  Tutors  in  History,  Government  and  Economics.  He  di- 
rected the  introductory  course  in  the  principles  of  economics  for  more  than 
twenty  years.  He  loved  teaching  economics,  but  he  cared  even  more  about 
developing  the  minds  of  young  men.  Few  Harvard  professors  have  ever 
worked  with  as  many  students  individually  as  he  did.  For  thirty  years  he 
carried  on  a research  project  into  the  evolution  of  the  colonial  property 
tax  in  a group  of  Massachusetts  towns,  but  left  it  unfinished  because  his 
students  and  his  department  always  came  first. 

Robert  Francis  Seybolt,  Corresponding,  1933,  died  5 February 
1951  at  the  age  of  sixty-three.  A graduate  of  Brown  University  with  his 
doctorate  from  Columbia,  he  taught  the  history  of  education  for  thirty- 
eight  years,  first  at  the  University  of  Wisconsin  and  since  1 920  at  the  Uni- 
versity of  Illinois.  Among  his  many  publications  were  his  translation  of 
the  Autobiography  of  a Wandering  Scholar  of  the  Fifteenth  Century  and 
several  books  on  schools  in  the  New  England  colonies  and  New  York.  He 


1951]  Report  of  the  Council  385 

enriched  our  Proceedings  with  scholarly  information  about  the  schoolmas- 
ters of  colonial  Boston  and  the  ministers  at  its  town  meetings. 

George  Gregerson  Wolkins,  Associate,  1937,  Resident,  1950, 
died  2 March  1951.  Descended  from  a Danish  ship-captain  who  settled 
in  Boston  a century  ago,  coal  merchant  and  scholar,  contributor  of  many 
papers  to  the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  and  for  ten  years  its  diffi- 
cult and  devoted  Treasurer. 

William  Gwinn  Mather,  Corresponding,  1927,  died  5 April 
1951  in  his  ninety-sixth  year.  An  iron  and  steel  manufacturer  in  Cleve- 
land since  1878,  trustee  of  three  colleges,  president  of  the  Cleveland  Mu- 
seum of  Art — a range  of  interests  that  his  ancestor  Cotton  Mather  would 
have  admired.  A collector  of  the  works  of  the  Mather  family,  he  placed 
scholars  and  librarians  permanently  in  his  debt  by  inspiring  the  publication 
of  the  magnificent  bibliography  of  their  writings. 

Richard  Clipston  Sturgis,  Resident,  1916,  was  transferred  to  Cor- 
responding Membership  in  1933,  when  upon  his  retirement  from  the  ac- 
tive practice  of  architecture,  he  moved  to  Portsmouth,  New  Hampshire. 
There  he  died  on  8 May  1951  in  his  ninety- first  year.  Born  in  Boston  in 
i860  of  a family  famous  in  the  China  trade,  he  graduated  from  Harvard 
in  1881  and  then  studied  architecture  in  England.  To  his  native  city  of 
Boston  he  gave  the  Federal  Reserve  Bank  and  other  notable  buildings, 
and  motorists  driving  along  the  Charles  River  are  delighted  by  the  Perkins 
Institution  for  the  Blind,  whose  inmates  will  never  know  the  beauty  of  its 
tower.  For  this  Society  he  designed  in  the  First  Church  in  Boston  the  door- 
way honoring  Thomas  Hutchinson,  who  as  governor  and  historian  served 
Massachusetts  well,  and  the  memorial  rail  to  Henry  Herbert  Edes,  our 
founder  and  chief  benefactor. 

Augustus  Peabody  Loring,  Jr.,  Resident,  1931,  Recording  Secre- 
tary for  thirteen  years,  President  of  this  Society  since  1946,  died  1 Octo- 
ber 1951.  A great  citizen  and  a good  friend. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Publication. 

Vice-President  Morison  paid  brief  but  eloquent  tribute  to  the 
Society’s  late  President,  Augustus  Peabody  Loring,  Jr.  Mr. 
David  McCord  read  a group  of  witty  and  ingenious  poems.  Mr. 
Julian  Parks  Boyd  then  addressed  the  Society  and  its  guests 
upon  “The  Black  Affair  of  Westover.” 


December  Meeting,  1951 

A STATED  Meeting  of  the  Society  was  held  at  the  Club  of 
Odd  Volumes,  No.  77  Mount  Vernon  Street,  Boston,  on 
Thursday,  20  December  1951,  at  three  o’clock  in  the 
afternoon,  the  President,  Hon.  Robert  Walcott,  in  the  chair. 

The  records  of  the  Annual  Meeting  in  November  were  read 
and  approved. 

The  Corresponding  Secretary  reported  the  receipt  of  a letter 
from  Mr.  Alfred  Porter  Putnam  accepting  election  to  Resi- 
dent Membership  in  the  Society. 

Mr.  Sumner  Chilton  Powell,  of  Cambridge,  Mr.  How- 
ard Arthur  Jones,  of  Boston,  Mr.  Augustus  Peabody  Lor- 
ing,  of  Prides  Crossing,  Mr.  James  Otis,  of  Needham,  Mr. 
John  Adams,  of  South  Lincoln,  and  Mr.  Alexander  White- 
side  Williams,  of  Needham,  were  elected  to  Resident  Member- 
ship j Mr.  Whitfield  Jenks  Bell,  Jr.,  of  Carlisle,  Pennsyl- 
vania, the  Reverend  Joseph  Raphael  Frese,  S.J.,  of  New  York 
City,  and  Mr.  William  Lewis  Sachse,  of  Madison,  Wiscon- 
sin, were  elected  to  Non-Resident  Membership,  and  Mr.  Doug- 
lass Adair,  of  Williamsburg,  Virginia,  Mr.  Marius  Barbeau, 
of  Ottawa,  Canada,  Mr.  Lyman  Henry  Butterfield,  of  Wil- 
liamsburg, Virginia,  Mr.  Oliver  Morton  Dickerson,  of 
Greeley,  Colorado,  Mr.  Lawrence  Henry  Gipson,  of  Rydal, 
Pennsylvania,  the  Reverend  Arthur  Pierce  Middleton,  of 
Williamsburg,  Virginia,  Mr.  John  Edwin  Pomfret,  of  Wil- 
liamsburg, Virginia,  Mr.  Foster  Stearns,  of  Exeter,  New 
Hampshire,  and  Mr.  Louis  Booker  Wright,  of  Washing- 
ton, D.  C.,  were  elected  to  Corresponding  Membership  in  the 
Society. 

Mr.  Samuel  Eliot  Morison  read  a paper  entitled: 


*95*] 


3«7 


I he  Pilgrim  Fathers’  Patents 

The  Mayflower’s  Destination,  and  the 
Pilgrim  Fathers’  Patents 

A PROBLEM  of  recurring  interest  to  every  historian  of  Plym- 
outh Colony  and  of  New  England  is  the  destination  of  the  May- 
flower. Was  it  Virginia,  or  the  mouth  of  the  Hudson,  or  some- 
where in  southern  New  England;  and  if  so,  whereabouts  in  New  Eng- 
land? We  all  know  where  she  did  end  her  voyage,  but  where  did  her 
company  intend  to  conclude  it?  And,  as  this  question  is  bound  up  with 
that  of  the  patents  which  the  Pilgrim  company  received  from  the  Virginia 
Company  of  London  and  the  Council  for  New  England,  I propose  to 
treat  the  two  together.  Hardly  any  two  historians  have  agreed  on  these 
two  subjects;  even  our  late  associate  Charles  McLean  Andrews,  whose 
trumpet  seldom  gave  forth  an  uncertain  sound,  came  to  no  conclusion  as 
to  the  Pilgrims’  exact  intended  destination. 

Of  the  Mayflower's  Western  Ocean  passage  between  6 September 
1620,  when  she  “put  to  sea  with  a prosperous  wind,”  from  Plymouth, 
England,  and  her  anchoring  in  Cape  Cod  Harbor  on  1 1 November,  noth- 
ing is  known  except  what  is  contained  in  Bradford’s  Plymouth  Plantationy 
and  in  the  so-called  Mourt's  Relation , the  tract  printed  in  1622  which  con- 
sists of  extracts  from  the  journals  of  Bradford  and  of  Edward  Winslow. 
From  these  sources  it  is  not  clear  whether  or  not  the  master  intended  to 
make  his  landfall  on  Cape  Cod.  The  Mayflower  may  well  have  been 
thrown  a hundred  miles  or  more  off  her  intended  course  by  foul  weather. 
“In  sundry  of  these  storms,”  writes  Bradford,  “the  winds  were  so  fierce 
and  the  seas  so  high,  as  they  could  not  bear  a knot  of  sail,  but  were  forced 
to  hull  [i.e.,  lay-to]  for  divers  days  together.”  And,  “after  long  beating 
at  sea  they  fell  with  that  land  which  is  called  Cape  Cod,”  about  daybreak 
9 November  1620.1  Captain  W.  Sears  Nickerson,  who  carefully  studied 
the  existing  sources  in  the  light  of  his  extensive  local  knowledge  and 
competent  seamanship,  concluded  that  this  landfall  was  made  on  the 
Highlands  at  or  very  near  latitude  41 0 55'  N. 

“After  some  deliberation  had  amongst  themselves  and  with  the  master 
of  the  ship,”  continues  Bradford,  “they  tacked  about  and  resolved  to 
stand  for  the  southward  (the  wind  and  weather  being  fair)  to  find  some 
place  about  Hudson’s  River  for  their  habitation.”  Or,  as  Mourt’s  Relation 


1 Bradford,  Of  Plymouth  Plantation , S.  E.  Morison,  ed.,  1952,  595  W.  S.  Nicker- 
son, Land  Ho! — 1620  (1931),  115. 


388  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

has  it,  “We  made  our  course  south-southwest,  purposing  to  go  to  a river 
ten  leagues  to  the  south  of  the  Cape.”2 

Postponing  consideration  as  to  whether  this  river  was  or  was  not  the 
Hudson,  there  is  complete  agreement  between  the  Bradford  of  Mourt’s 
Relation  and  the  Bradford  of  the  History  that  the  Mayflower  found  herself 
at  the  close  of  9 November  entangled  in  the  “dangerous  shoals  and  roar- 
ing breakers”  of  Pollock  Rip,  with  a dying  and  unfavorable  wind;  and 
that  it  was  then  decided  “to  bear  up  again  for  the  Cape.” 

At  daybreak,  1 1 November,  the  Mayflower  was  off  Cape  Cod  (now 
Provincetown)  Harbor.  It  was  then  that  the  major  part  of  the  male  pas- 
sengers signed  the  famous  Mayflower  Compact.  This  document  states  in 
plain  and  unmistakable  terms  that,  “Having  undertaken,  for  the  Glory 
of  God,  and  advancement  of  the  Christian  faith,  and  honour  of  our  King 
and  Country,  a voyage  to  plant  the  first  colony  in  the  Northern  parts  of 
Virginia,”  they  solemnly  covenant  and  combine  themselves  into  a civil 
body  politic.  Bradford  plainly  and  unmistakably  states  the  reason  for  this 
action:  that  some  of  the  “strangers”  intruded  into  the  company  by  the 
merchant  adventurers  had  threatened  “when  they  came  ashore  they 
would  use  their  own  liberty;  for  none  had  power  to  command  them,  the 
patent  they  had  being  for  Virginia,  and  not  for  New  England,  which 
belonged  to  another  government  with  which  the  Virginia  Company  had 
nothing  to  do.”3 

Here,  then,  is  a perfectly  clear  sequence  of  events  and  motives.  The 
Pilgrims  had  a patent  for  Virginia;  i.e.,  for  the  Virginia  of  the  London 
Company,  which  according  to  its  latest  charter,  that  of  1612,  extended 
to  latitude  41 0 N,4  which  passes  through  Westchester  County  in  the  pres- 
ent State  of  New  York.  After  ascertaining  that  their  landfall  was  on 
Cape  Cod,  those  directing  the  Mayflower  decided  to  steer  for  the  mouth 
of  the  Hudson,  or  of  a river  ten  leagues  to  the  south  of  Cape  Cod.  But 
that  very  evening,  owing  to  the  weather,  the  shoals,  and  perhaps  the  late 
season,  they  decided  instead  to  make  for  the  great  harbor  of  Cape  Cod. 
And  there,  realizing  that  they  were  well  north  of  the  northern  boundary 
of  Virginia,  they  made  a compact  for  self-government  until  such  time  as 
they  could  obtain  a valid  patent  from  that  “other  government  with  which 
the  Virginia  Company  had  nothing  to  do,”  namely,  the  Council  for  New 
England. 

All  this  seems  sensible  enough,  when  we  remember  that  Virginia  did 

2 H.  M.  Dexter,  ed.,  1865,  2. 

3 Bradford,  75 ; 1912  ed.,  I.  189-191. 

4 William  MacDonald,  Select  Charters , 18. 


1951]  The  Pilgrim  Fathers’  Patents  389 

then  include  the  mouth  of  the  Hudson,  where  the  Dutch  had  not  yet  set- 
tled, and  that  the  M ay j lower  carried  in  her  strongbox  a patent  from  the 
Virginia  Company.  If  this  had  been  an  ordinary  voyage,  and  the  Pilgrim 
Fathers  ordinary  people,  there  would  be  no  question  about  it.  But,  as  in 
all  extraordinary  voyages,  like  those  of  Columbus,  plain  facts  have  been 
twisted  by  many  and  sundry  to  mean  something  else. 

Suppose  we  start  at  the  beginning.  Bradford  says  in  his  Chapter  V, 
“Showing  what  Means  they  Used  for  Preparation  for  this  Weighty  Voy- 
age,” that,  after  long  discussion  as  to  the  place  they  should  settle,  the  Ley- 
den congregation  reached  the  conclusion  “to  live  as  a distinct  body  by 
themselves  under  the  General  Government  of  Virginia.”5 

What  this  last  clause  meant  is  also  perfectly  clear.  In  1617  the  Virgin- 
ia Company  of  London  began  the  practice  of  granting  large  tracts  of  land, 
up  to  80,000  acres,  to  groups  of  individuals  who  would  undertake  to 
people  and  to  cultivate  them.  Such  grants  were  known  as  “Particular 
Plantations”  or  “Hundreds.”  They  carried  special  privileges  such  as  local 
self-government,  jurisdiction  as  in  a manor,  fishing  rights,  and  permis- 
sion to  carry  on  an  independent  trade  with  the  Indians.  Over  forty  such 
grants  were  made  during  the  remaining  seven  years  of  the  Virginia  Com- 
pany’s life,  to  1624;  and  although  most  of  them  (like  that  of  the  Pil- 
grims) were  never  taken  up,  a fair  number  were  actually  established.0 
The  best  known  were  Richard  Martin’s  Hundred,  John  Martin’s  Bran- 
don, Smith’s  or  Southampton  Hundred  (80,000  acres  on  the  north  side 
of  the  James  River),  Smyth  of  Nibley’s  or  Berkeley’s  Hundred,  Zouche’s 
Hundred,  and  Fleur  de  Hundred.  All  these  were  organized  before  leav- 
ing England,  with  a governor  and  council  and  “conducted  themselves 
as  a miniature  of  the  larger  company  from  which  they  received  their  pat- 
ent.” 7 The  one  patent  of  a Particular  Plantation,  Smyth  of  Nibley’s,  that 
has  been  preserved,  does  not  specify  wrhere  the  Hundred  was  to  be,  merely 
that  it  should  not  be  within  ten  miles  of  any  other.s  The  procedure  was 

0 Bradford,  295  1912  ed.,  65. 

6 These  Particular  Plantations  have  never  been  made  the  subject  of  an  intensive 
study  j P.  A.  Bruce  is  exasperatingly  vague  about  them  in  his  Institutional  History 
of  Virginia , 11.  290—294,  327;  the  best  study  so  far  is  in  C.  M.  Andrews,  Colonial 
Period  of  A?nerican  History , 1.  128-133.  There  was  to  have  been  a Puritan  Particu- 
lar Plantation  earlier,  Francis  Blackwell’s;  Bradford  is  the  sole  authority  on  his 
unfortunate  voyage  and  shipwreck  in  1618— 1619. 

7 Andrews,  I.  132. 

s Bulletin  of  the  New  York  Public  Library , in  (1899),  162,  where  the  Smyth  of 
Nibley  patent  is  printed.  Some  fifty  papers  of  this  Hundred  are  in  the  New  York 
Public  Library.  There  is  a calendar  of  them  in  Bulletin , 1.  186—190,  and  many  of 
the  documents  are  printed  in  I.  68—72  and  ill.  160—171,  208-223,  248—258,  276- 


390  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

for  the  patentee  or  company,  upon  arrival  in  Virginia,  to  choose  a suitable 
site  and  then  obtain  a warrant  for  the  land,  with  its  boundaries  described, 
from  the  secretary’s  office  at  Jamestown. 

The  first  of  two  such  patents  that  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  obtained  for  a 
Particular  Plantation  was  granted  on  9 June  1619  by  the  Virginia  Com- 
pany of  London  to  John  Wincop,9  whom  Bradford  describes  as  “a  re- 
ligious gentleman  then  belonging  to  the  Countess  of  Lincoln,  who  in- 
tended to  go  with  them.  But  God  so  disposed  that  he  never  went,  nor 
they  ever  made  use  of  this  patent  which  cost  them  so  much  labor  and 
charge.”1 

Subsequent  to  the  granting  of  this  patent,  and  after  the  leaders  of  the 
migratory  movement  among  the  Leyden  congregation  had  been  some- 
what put  off  by  the  refusal  of  the  majority  to  leave,  “some  Dutchmen 
made  them  fair  offers”  to  go  to  New  Netherlands  and  “one  Mr.  Thom- 
as Weston,  a merchant  of  London”  came  to  persuade  them  “not  to  med- 
dle with  the  Dutch  or  too  much  to  depend  on  the  Virginia  Company,” 
since  “he  and  such  merchants  as  were  his  friends”  would  take  better  care 
of  them.3  And  “about  this  time  also  they  had  heard,  both  from  Mr.  Wes- 
ton and  other,  that  sundry  Honourable  Lords  had  obtained  a large  grant 
from  the  King  for  the  more  northerly  parts  of  that  country,  derived  out 
of  the  Virginia  patent  and  wholly  secluded  from  their  Government,  and 
to  be  called  by  another  name,  viz.  New  England.”  This,  of  course,  was 
the  Council  for  New  England,  a reorganization  of  the  Northern  Virginia 
Company  of  1606,  of  which  the  principal  leader  was  Sir  Ferdinando 
Gorges.  It  was  he  who  with  sundry  other  “honourable  lords,”  members 
of  the  Northern  Virginia  Company,  petitioned  for  a new  charter  in  March, 
1 620. 4 Bradford  states  that  Weston’s  arguments  as  to  the  good  fishing 
to  be  had  in  New  England  converted  a majority  of  the  intended  emigrants 

295.  John  Smyth  of  Nibley,  M.P.,  was  a very  important  person  in  England  who 
never  emigrated;  the  best  account  of  him  is  by  Wallace  Notestein  in  the  introduction 
to  his  Commons  Debates  1621  (New  Haven,  1935),  I.  69-86. 

9 Susan  Kingsbury,  ed.,  Records  of  Virginia  Co.  of  London , 1.  221,  228. 

1 Bradford,  34;  1912  ed.,  1.  95.  Wincop  was  tutor  or  chaplain  in  the  household  of 
Thomas  Fiennes-Clinton,  third  Earl  of  Lincoln,  whose  daughters  were  Lady  Ar- 
bella  Johnson  and  Lady  Susan  Humfry  of  the  Massachusetts  Bay  migration.  The 
patent  has  not  survived;  nor  do  we  know  why  it  was  unsatisfactory.  Although  Win- 
cop did  not  migrate,  he  could  have  assigned  the  patent  to  those  who  did,  as  John 
Peirce  must  have  done. 

2 Bradford,  37;  W.  C.  Ford  gives  all  the  particulars  of  this  offer  from  Dutch 
sources  in  the  1912  ed.,  1.  99. 

3 For  Weston  and  his  group  of  Merchant  Adventurers,  see  Andrews,  1.  261,  330- 
331- 

4 MacDonald,  Select  Charters , 23—33;  Documentary  History  of  Maine , vn.  15-18. 


1951]  The  Pilgrim  Fathers’  Patents  391 

in  the  Leyden  congregation  since,  after  much  discussion  pro  and  con,  “the 
generality  was  swayed”  to  New  England.6 

But  there  were  several  reasons  why  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  should  not 
have  headed  for  New  England.  For  one  thing,  Gorges  and  the  “honour- 
able lords”  did  not  succeed  in  getting  their  New  England  charter  through 
the  seals  before  the  Mayflower  sailed.  The  charter  was  held  up  because 
they  wanted  a monopoly  of  fishing  in  New  England  waters,  against 
which  the  Virginia  Company  and  others  vigorously  protested.8  Sentiment 
against  monopolies  had  by  this  time  become  so  strong  in  England  that  the 
government  did  not  see  fit  to  grant  a fishing  monopoly  to  the  “honour- 
able lords.”7  Owing  to  this  delay,  the  Council  for  New  England  had 
not  yet  come  to  life  when  the  Pilgrims  departed,  and  obviously  could  not 
grant  them  a patent. 

Furthermore,  the  Pilgrims  had  already  in  hand  a second  patent  from 
the  Virginia  Company  to  replace  that  of  Mr.  Wincop,  who  apparently 
decided  not  to  emigrate,  which  voided  his  grant.  This  second  patent  (also 
called  the  First  Peirce  Patent)  was  granted  2 February  1619/20  to  John 
Peirce,  citizen  and  clothier  of  London,  a close  associate  of  Thomas  Wes- 
ton and  of  the  Virginia  Company.  And  on  the  same  day  the  Virginia 
Company  passed  a very  liberal  ordinance  for  Particular  Plantations, 
granting  to  their  “captains  or  leaders  . . . liberty,  till  a Form  of  Govern- 
ment be  here  settled  for  them,  associating  unto  them  divers  of  the  gravest 

" Bradford,  39;  1912  ed.  I.  103.  This  is  the  passage  relied  upon  by  Bradford 
Smith,  Bradford  of  Plymouth , 108-109,  to  prove  that  the  Mayflower  was  really 
headed  for  New  England  from  the  first. 

6 Andrews,  I.  263,  with  numerous  references.  This  lack  of  fishing  monopoly  also 
made  investment  in  the  Pilgrim  migration  much  less  attractive  to  Weston  and  his 
associates,  and  partly  explains  the  hard  conditions  that  they  exacted. 

7 The  sentiment  against  a fishing  monopoly  is  reflected  in  the  debate  in  Parliament 
in  1621,  where  Gorges  and  Sir  John  Bourchier  of  the  Council  for  New  England  are 
described  as  “two  Mercuries”  who  “would  monopolize  the  fishing”  and  deny  others 
liberty  to  cut  wood  and  erect  fishing  stages;  “theis  New  England  men  will  neither 
plant  themselves  nor  suffer  the  laborynge  oxe.”  F.  L.  Stock,  Proceedings  and  Debates 
in  British  Parliament  Respecting  North  America , I.  37—38,  and  Notestein,  Com- 
mons Debates  1621,  v.  378—379.  In  Lord  Baltimore’s  charter  of  Maryland  12  years 
later,  although  his  lordship  was  granted  virtually  sovereign  powers  over  his  propri- 
ety, fishing  rights  were  expressly  excepted;  for  the  Charter  states  in  Article  XVI, 
“Saving  always  to  Us,  our  Heirs  and  Successors,  and  to  all  the  Subjects  of  Our  King- 
doms of  England  and  Ireland,  of  Us,  our  Heirs  and  Successors,  the  Liberty  of  Fish- 
ing for  sea  fish,  as  well  in  the  sea,  bays,  straits  and  navigable  rivers,  as  in  the  har- 
bors, bays  and  creeks  of  the  province  aforesaid  5 and  the  privilege  of  salting  and  dry- 
ing fish  on  the  shores  of  the  same  province;  and,  for  that  cause,  to  cut  down  and 
take  hedging  wood  and  twigs  there  growing,  and  to  build  huts  and  cabins,  necessary 
in  this  behalf.” — Translation  in  F.  N.  Thorpe,  Federal  and  State  Constitutions , etc., 
III.  1683-1684. 


392  The  Colonial  Socictv  of  Aiassachusetts  [dec. 

and  discretest  of  their  companies,  to  make  Orders,  Ordinances  and  Con- 
stitutions for  the  better  ordering  and  directing  of  their  Servants  and  Busi- 
ness, Provided  they  be  not  repugnant  to  the  Laws  of  England.”  In  other 
words,  a Particular  Plantation  was  guaranteed  a very  wide  autonomy 
within  the  Virginia  Colony.  Here  was  not  only  a grant  of  land  that  could 
be  located  anywhere  up  to  or  including  Manhattan,  but  encouragement 
for  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  to  form  and  enjoy  self-government;  the  famous 
Mayflower  Compact  was  first  suggested  by  the  Virginia  Company.8 

It  was  this  Peirce  Patent  of  2 February  1620,  which  the  Pilgrims  car- 
ried overseas  with  them  and  which  became  invalid  when  they  located 
north  of  latitude  41 0 N.  Weston’s  agreement  with  them,  dated  1 July 
1620,  was  made  in  expectation  that  they  would  either  use  this  Peirce  Pat- 
ent from  Virginia  or  obtain  a new  one  from  the  Council  for  New  England 
if  there  were  time.  But,  as  we  have  seen,  the  New  England  charter  did 
not  pass  the  seals  until  the  Mayjlower  was  almost  at  the  end  of  her  voyage. 

I conclude,  therefore,  that  the  Pilgrims,  though  preferring  New  Eng- 
land because  of  its  well-advertised  fishing,  proposed  instead  to  settle 
“some  place  about  Hudson’s  River”  because  the  only  patent  that  they 
had,  the  Peirce  Patent  from  the  Virginia  Company,  was  good  for  that 
region.  The  mouth  of  the  Hudson  was  not  too  far  from  the  New  Eng- 
land fishing  banks,  it  was  magnificently  located  for  the  fur  trade,  and  it 
was  sufficiently  distant  from  Jamestown  to  make  the  Particular  Planta- 
tion free  from  religious  or  other  interference  by  the  Virginia  government. 
Of  course  they  must  have  known,  during  their  residence  in  the  Nether- 
lands, that  the  Dutch  claimed  Hudson  River  by  virtue  of  Henry  Hudson’s 
voyage  in  1609,  and  that  they  had  already  been  actively  exploring  and 
trading  in  that  region.  But  they  also  knew  that  England  had  never  ad- 
mitted that  claim,9  that  no  permanent  settlement  or  even  trading  factory 
had  yet  been  established  on  or  near  the  Hudson  by  the  Dutch.  Fort  Or- 
ange. on  the  site  of  Albany,  was  only  established  in  1624,  and  New  Am- 
sterdam on  Manhattan  in  1626.1  If  the  Mayjlower  % voyage  had  been 

8 Kingsbury,  1.  303.  This  hint  of  the  future  compact  from  the  Virginia  Company  is 
dated  2 February  1619/20,  whilst  the  Rev.  John  Robinson’s  better-known  hint 
about  their  civil  community,  body  politic  and  choice  of  magistrates  is  in  a letter  of 
about  1 August  1620.  Bradford,  370;  1912  ed.,  1.  132— 134. 

9 Council  for  New  England  in  1625  asserted  its  claim  to  the  Hudson  region,  causing 
a Dutch  ship,  Orangenboom , to  be  detained  at  Plymouth,  England,  on  the  ground 
that  it  was  unlawfully  bound  for  Manhattan.  (A.  S.  F.  Van  Laer,  Documents  Re- 
lating to  New  N etherland , in  the  H.  E.  Huntington  Library,  1924,  261)  ; and  so  in 
1627  did  Governor  Bradford  ( Letter-Book , 364— 365). 

1 Victor  Paltsits,  in  Proc.  A.A.S. , xxxn  (1924),  39—65.  Paltsits  proves  that  the 
yarn  of  Samuel  Argali’s  calling  at  Manhattan  in  1613,  and  finding  Dutch  traders 


1951]  The  Pilgrim  Fathers’  Patents  393 

more  auspicious  and  her  Hudson  River  destination  had  been  attained,  it 
is  highly  probable  that  the  Pilgrims  would  have  pitched  their  settlement 
on  the  site  of  New  York  City,  with  possibilities  too  fantastic  even  to  con- 
template! 

There  remain  two  other  questions  to  be  dealt  with:  the  river  “ten 
leagues  south,”  and  the  alleged  treachery  of  the  master  of  the  Mayflower. 

Mourt's  Relation , as  we  have  seen,  does  not  mention  the  Hudson  by 
name,  but  states  that  the  Pilgrims,  after  their  landfall  on  Cape  Cod,  pur- 
posed “to  go  to  a river  ten  leagues  to  the  south  of  the  Cape.”  This  was 
taken  right  out  of  Bradford’s  own  journal,  so  there  would  seem  to  be 
no  question  but  that  his  statement  in  the  History , written  down  in  1630, 
that  their  destination  was  the  Hudson,  was  an  elucidation  of  the  earlier 
one,  written  in  1620  or  1621.  I conclude  that  the  “river  ten  leagues  to 
the  south”  was  the  Hudson  and  not  the  Sakonnet,  the  Thames  or  some 
other  Connecticut  river,  as  several  local  historians  have  asserted. 

It  would  help  us  to  reconcile  the  Mourt’s  Relation  statement — printed 
in  1622 — with  Bradford’s  statement  of  1630,  if  we  knew  what  charts  or 
maps  of  the  coast  the  Mayflower  had  in  her  chart  room.  No  hint,  so  far 
as  I can  find,  has  been  given  by  Bradford  or  any  of  the  early  writers  on 
that  subject.  So  we  have  to  inquire  what  maps  or  charts  were  available. 
Here,  too,  the  information  is  very  meager  and  dubious.  Captain  John 
Smith’s  Map  of  Virginia,  first  printed  at  Oxford  in  1612,  includes  the 
Chesapeake  Bay  region  only.  The  same  author’s  Map  of  New  England, 
which  appeared  in  his  Description  thereof  (1616),  chops  off  the  southern 
part  of  Cape  Cod  and  includes  neither  Buzzards  Bay  nor  Long  Island 
Sound.  The  Pilgrims  doubtless  had  a copy  of  this  map  on  board,  since 
they  took  from  it  the  name  Plymouth,  but  it  did  them  no  good  in  trying 
to  find  the  Hudson.  So  far  as  we  are  aware,  no  English  map  of  the  eastern 
coast  of  North  America  existed  in  1620  which  would  have  been  of  the 
slightest  use  to  the  Pilgrim  Fathers.2 

Dutch  maps  tell  a different  story.  A fairly  accurate  map  of  the  coast 
from  Maine  to  New  Jersey,  generally  known  as  the  Figurative  Map, 
was  presented  to  the  States  General  in  1616  by  Dutch  merchant-ship- 
owners  who  were  afterwards  chartered  as  the  United  New  Netherland 
Company.3  It  shows  the  result  of  the  recent  voyages  of  Adrien  Block, 

there  whom  he  compelled  to  recognize  English  authority,  is  completely  devoid  of 
foundation  in  fact. 

2 Earl  G.  Swem,  “Maps  Relating  to  Virginia,”  Bulletin  of  the  Virginia  State  Li- 
brary, VII  (l9I4),  41—44. 

3 A.  C.  Flick,  History  of  the  State  of  New  York,  1 (1933),  165— 168.  The  Figura- 
tive Map  of  1616  is  reproduced  in  Documents  Relative  to  Colonial  History  of  New 


394  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

Hendrik  Christiaensen  and  Cornelis  Hendricksen  along  the  New  England 
coast  from  Manhattan  to  Mt.  Desert.  For  the  period,  this  Figurative  Map 
is  a fairly  accurate  chart.  But  it  seems  unlikely  that  so  obscure  a group  as 
the  Pilgrim  Fathers  could  have  obtained  a copy  of  a map  prepared  by  a 
group  of  important  merchants  who  were  seeking  a monopoly  of  that  re- 
gion.4 Possibly,  however,  the  Pilgrims  obtained  a manuscript  Dutch  map 
of  the  coast  in  1618—1619,  when  “some  Dutchmen  made  them  fair  of- 
fers about  going  with  them.” 

There  are  several  editions  of  Mercator’s  Atlas , starting  with  the  one  of 
1607,  which  the  Pilgrims  might  have  had;  but  Mercator’s  charts  of  this 
coast,  until  well  on  into  the  seventeenth  century,  showed  a continuous 
shoreline  from  the  southern  part  of  Cape  Cod  to  Cape  Hatteras,  with  no 
Long  Island  Sound.  Such  charts  would  have  done  the  Pilgrims  no  good 
whatsoever. 

English  mariners  in  1620  did  not  cross  the  ocean  blind.  The  master 
of  the  Mayflower,  or  the  mate  who  had  been  to  America  before,  must  have 
had  one  or  more  manuscript  charts  prepared  by  practical  seamen.  But  it  is 
fruitless  to  conjecture  what  chart,  if  any,  the  Mayflower  had  of  southern 
New  England,  for  all  English  manuscript  charts  of  that  period  have 
perished. 

If  the  Pilgrims  had  a Dutch  chart  similar  to  the  Figurative  Map  of 
1616,  the  ten  leagues  of  southing  mentioned  by  “Mourt”  is  readily  ex- 
plicable. For  on  the  Figurative  Map,  the  southern  point  of  Cape  Cod 
(Monomoy)  is  in  latitude  40°  50'  N.  The  Narrows  of  New  York  Har- 
bor and  Sandy  Hook,  either  of  which  might  be  considered  to  be  the  mouth 
of  the  Hudson,  are  in  latitude  40 0 3c/  N.,  and  40 0 20'  N.,  respectively. 
These  differences  of  latitude — twenty  and  thirty  minutes — are  near 
enough  for  ten  leagues,  which  is  30  nautical  miles  or  minutes. 

The  alleged  treachery  of  Christopher  Jones,  master  of  the  Mayflower , 
goes  back  to  Nathaniel  Morton,  Secretary  of  the  Plymouth  Colony  and 
nephew  by  marriage  to  Governor  Bradford.  Morton  wrote  in  his  New 
Englands  Memoriall  (1669) 5 that,  whilst  “their  Intention  ...  and  his 
Engagement  was  to  Hudsons  River,”  some  Dutchmen  who  wished  to 
locate  there  themselves  bribed  him,  first  “by  delayes  whilst  they  were  in 
England , and  now  under  pretence  of  the  danger  of  the  Sholes,  etc.,  to  dis- 

York,  E.  B.  O’Callaghan,  ed.,  1.  13,  and  separately;  more  recently  in  I.  N.  P, 
Stokes,  Iconography  of  Manhattan , 11  (1916),  ch.  iii,  plate  23. 

4 A bit  of  negative  evidence  is  this:  the  Figurative  Map  shows  Plymouth  Bay  very 
clearly  and  names  it  Crane  Bay;  but  Bradford  never  used  this  name  or  any  other 
name  that  is  on  the  Figurative  Map. 

5 P.  12;  1855  ecL  22* 


1951]  The  Pilgrim  Fathers’  Patents  395 

appoint  them  in  their  going  thither.”  Of  this  Morton  says  he  “had  late 
and  certain  Intelligence.” 

Worthington  C.  Ford,  in  a lengthy  note  to  his  edition  of  Bradford,® 
examines  this  story  from  every  angle,  and  rejects  it.  He  conjectures  that 
Morton  got  it  from  Thomas  Willett,  that  bright  young  man  among  the 
Pilgrims  who  joined  Nicolls’  expedition  that  captured  New  Amsterdam 
in  1664,  and  who  became  the  first  English  mayor  of  New  York;  or  from 
John  Scott,  the  adventurer  who  aspired  to  be  lord  and  proprietor  of  Long 
Island.  This  “late  and  certain  Intelligence”  must  have  reached  Morton 
at  a time  when  the  Netherlands  were  England’s  principal  enemy,  when 
the  Dutch  were  presumably  capable  of  any  villainy  as,  at  later  epochs,  the 
French,  the  Germans,  and  in  our  day,  the  Russians. 

In  any  event,  there  is  no  need  to  assume  treachery  on  the  part  of  Mas- 
ter Jones  to  explain  why  the  Mayflower  did  not  sail  on  to  Long  Island 
Sound.  Any  seaman  who  has  weathered  Cape  Cod  will  accept  the  “dan- 
gerous shoals  and  roaring  breakers”  of  a yet  undredged  and  unbuoyed 
Pollock  Rip  as  sufficient  explanation  of  the  change  of  course. 

Finally,  to  clinch  the  evidence  that  the  Pilgrims  did  intend  to  settle 
near  the  mouth  of  the  Hudson,  and  so  within  Virginia,  we  have  the  tes- 
timony of  John  Pory,  Secretary  of  the  Virginia  Colony,  who  visited 
Plymouth  in  1622.  In  his  account  of  that  visit  he  states  flatly  that  “their 
[the  Pilgrims’]  voyage  was  intended  for  Virginia,”  that  they  carried  let- 
ters of  introduction  from  Sir  Edwin  Sandys  and  John  Ferrar,  Treasurer 
and  Secretary  of  the  Virginia  Company,  to  Sir  George  Yeardley,  Gover- 
nor of  the  Jamestown  colony,  “that  he  should  give  them  the  best  advice 
he  could  for  trading  in  Hudson’s  River.”7  Supposing  they  had  reached 
that  great  river  mouth  and  located  on  Manhattan,  or  Staten  Island,  or 
the  Brooklyn  shore,  the  Pilgrims  would  have  dispatched  the  Mayflower 
to  Jamestown  with  the  Peirce  Patent,  recorded  it,  and  obtained  a warrant 
for  their  chosen  settlement  and  its  boundaries.  There  is  no  doubt  in  my 
mind  that  Yeardley  and  the  Council  at  Jamestown  would  have  wel- 
comed a settlement  of  Englishmen  at  the  Hudson  River’s  mouth  and 
would  have  done  all  in  their  power  to  further  it.  Only  seven  years  earlier 
the  Jamestown  authorities  had  sent  Samuel  Argali  down  east  to  break  up 
the  French  settlements  at  Mount  Desert  and  Port  Royal.  It  seems  to  me 
that  the  authorities  at  Jamestown  would  have  snapped  at  the  chance  to 

6 1912  ed.,  1.  158—161. 

7 John  Pory,  Lost  Descriftion  of  Plymouth  (Champlin  Burrage,  ed.,  1918),  35. 
Pory's  statement  seems  to  dispose  of  Andrews’  contention  (1.  133,  259)  that  the 
Virginia  Company  never  would  have  allowed  the  Pilgrims  to  settle  so  far  from 
Jamestown  as  the  Hudson. 


39 6 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

establish  at  the  mouth  of  the  Hudson  an  English  outpost  against  the 
Dutch.8 

Of  course,  the  Dutch  would  have  had  something  to  say  about  it,  too; 
but  again,  they  might  not  have  dared  to  risk  a war  with  England  by  offer- 
ing violence  to  her  subjects,  although  that  is  exactly  what  they  did  in  the 
Amboyna  massacre  in  the  East  Indies  three  years  later.9  They  might  well 
have  endeavored  to  dislodge  the  Pilgrims  from  Manhattan  or  Staten  Is- 
land; but  by  the  time  the  Dutch  West  Indies  Company  had  enough  force 
at  its  disposal  to  try  conclusions,  the  Pilgrims  would  have  been  well  estab- 
lished and  reinforced  by  men  and  munitions  from  England  and  Virginia. 

Even  though  the  Dutch  did  get  there  first,  Peter  Minuit  and  his  coun- 
cil were  so  alarmed  at  Governor  Bradford’s  mild  reminder  of  the  Eng- 
lish claim  to  that  region  in  1627,  that  they  wrote  to  the  West  India  Com- 
pany, who  passed  the  word  to  the  States  General,  that  “The  English  of 
New  Plymouth  threatened  to  drive  away  those  there,”  and  asked  for  forty 
soldiers  to  defend  New  Amsterdam  against  a possible  assault  by  the  Pil- 
grims— a request  that  was  not  honored.  Thus,  if  the  Dutch  at  New  Am- 
sterdam were  so  afraid  of  the  Pilgrims  in  1627,  it  seems  very  unlikely 
that  they  would  have  attacked  a Pilgrim  settlement  at  the  mouth  of  the 
Hudson.  So  much  has  been  written  about  the  slender  population  and  low 
state  of  the  Plymouth  Colony  that  we  forget  it  was  the  strongest  Euro- 
pean colony  north  of  Virginia  until  1630;  stronger,  indeed,  than  Vir- 
ginia after  the  Indian  massacre  of  1622.1 

Since  the  Pilgrims  decided  to  settle  in  New  England,  where  the  Peirce 
Patent  from  the  Virginia  Company  was  invalid,  they  found  it  necessary  to 
obtain  another  from  the  Council  for  New  England.  Accordingly,  John 
Peirce  applied  for,  and  obtained  in  his  own  name,  a second  Peirce  Patent, 
dated  1 June  1621. 2 This  patent  was  unsatisfactory  to  the  Pilgrims  for 

8 It  is  interesting-  to  note  that  the  Virginia  Company  contemplated  giving  the  Pil- 
grims the  task  of  training  and  bringing  up  sundry  Indian  children.  The  General 
Court  of  the  Virginia  Company  of  London  (Kingsbury,  1.  310— 31 1)  on  16  Febru- 
ary 1619/20,  upon  motion  of  Sir  John  Wolstenholme,  a friend  of  the  Pilgrims,  took 
into  consideration  giving  “John  Peirce  and  his  Associates”  this  charge.  But  a special 
committee  reported  that  “for  divers  reasons”  this  would  be  “inconvenient”:  (1) 
the  Pilgrims  did  not  intend  to  sail  for  several  months ; (2)  they  would  “be  long  in 
settling  themselves”;  (3)  the  Indians  were  “not  acquainted  with  them.”  The  In- 
dian children  were  therefore  apportioned  among  Smith’s,  Berkeley’s  and  Martin’s 
Hundreds. 

9 Channing,  United  States,  I.  121. 

1 J.  R.  Brodhead,  History  of  the  State  of  New  York , 1.  180— 18 1,  and  his  Documents 
Relative  to  Colonial  History  of  New  York , 1.  38. 

2 The  legal  implications  and  limitations  of  this  patent  are  described  in  Andrews,  1. 
280.  It  is  printed  in  Bradford,  1912  ed.,  1.  246-251,  with  facsimile  of  the  original. 


1951]  1 lie  Pilgrim  Fathers’  Patents  397 

several  reasons,  especially  because  it  mentioned  no  boundaries.3  John 
Peirce,  still  prominent  among  Weston’s  Adventurers  who  financed  the 
Plymouth  Colony,  now  took  advantage  of  this  dissatisfaction  to  “pull  a 
fast  one”  on  the  Pilgrims.  He  surrendered  his  Patent  of  1621  to  the  Coun- 
cil and  received  in  turn  a deed  poll,  dated  20  April  1622,  which  in  ef- 
fect turned  the  Plymouth  Colony  into  Peirce’s  personal  proprietary  col- 
ony. This  arrangement  was  so  inacceptable  to  the  Pilgrims  and  to  their 
London  Associates  as  well,  that  they  induced  Peirce  to  surrender  his  deed 
poll  to  James  Sherley,  treasurer  of  Weston’s  Company  of  Adventurers, 
in  return  for  £500.  This  sum  was  never  paid,  and  Peirce  carried  the  case 
into  Chancery.4 5 

According  to  Andrews,  “The  former  patent  of  1621  was  restored  to 
full  validity,  and  until  1630  this  patent  furnished  the  only  title  that  the 
Pilgrims  had  to  their  lands  and  the  only  right  they  had  in  law  to  exist  as 
a self-governing  community.”0  That  probably  was  the  case;  certainly  the 
colony  and  their  London  associates,  and  the  Council  for  New  England, 
acted  on  the  assumption  that  the  Peirce  Patent  of  1621  was  still  good  and 
that  the  deed  poll  was  null  and  void. 

Naturally,  the  Pilgrims  were  uneasy  as  long  as  that  patent  assigned  no 
boundaries  to  the  colony.  Bradford  made  frequent  attempts,  through  Al- 
lerton  and  the  London  associates,  to  obtain  a new  patent  from  the  Coun- 
cil, with  definite  boundaries.  His  efforts  were  rewarded  in  time  to  give 
Plymouth  Colony  a legal  defense  against  Massachusetts  Bay.  On  13  Jan- 
uary 1629/30  the  Council  for  New  England  granted  unto  “William 
Bradford,  his  heirs,  associates  and  assigns,  all  that  part  of  New  England 
in  America”  between  Cohasset  River  on  the  north  and  Narragansett 
River  on  the  south.6  It  included,  defined  and  enlarged  the  Plymouth  Col- 
ony’s grant  on  the  Kennebec  River,  around  the  site  of  the  future  Augusta, 
for  which  a patent  had  already  been  obtained  from  the  Council  in  1627. 

The  patent  of  13  January  1629/30,  often  called  the  Warwick  Pat- 
ent after  its  principal  signer,  made  William  Bradford  legally  the  sole  lord 

3 Boundaries  were  not  mentioned  in  the  Virginia  Company’s  patents  to  the  Particu- 
lar Plantations  because  they  were  settled  upon  at  Jamestown  after  the  patentees  ar- 
rived; in  New  England,  however,  there  was  no  Jamestown  since  the  Council  never 
did  establish  a colony  or  a general  government  of  its  own.  Hence  the  omission  of 
boundaries  from  this  patent  was  serious. 

4 His  bill  in  Chancery  is  printed  in  New  Eng.  Hist.  Gen.  Reg.,  LXVil  (1913),  147- 
153,  and  the  case  is  discussed  by  Andrews,  1.  282-283,  who,  unnecessarily  I think, 
couples  Peirce  with  Lyford  as  victims  of  Pilgrim  misrepresentation. 

5 1.  283. 

6 Compact,  Cfiarters  and  Laws  of  the  Colony  of  New  Plymouth  (Wm.  Brigham, 
ed.,  1836),  21—26;  in  part  in  MacDonald,  Select  Charters,  51-53. 


398  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

and  proprietor  of  the  Plymouth  Colony.  He  could,  had  he  chosen,  have 
been  the  William  Penn  or  the  Lord  Baltimore  of  New  England.  But 
that  was  a role  to  which  the  Pilgrim  governor  did  not  aspire.  In  the  first 
place,  taking  advantage  of  the  term  “associates”  in  the  patent,  he  required 
Winslow,  Allerton  and  some  of  the  leading  “Old  Comers”  to  share  his 
responsibility  in  making  land  grants.  The  colony  continued  to  be  gov- 
erned as  before  by  the  freemen  and  their  annually  elected  General  Court. 
And  in  March  1640/41,  after  the  freemen  had  evinced  some  jealousy 
over  the  potentialities  of  Bradford  and  the  “Old  Comers”  disposing  of 
all  the  ungranted  land,  the  governor  and  his  associates  voluntarily  as- 
signed their  powers  under  the  Warwick  Patent  to  the  colony  in  its  cor- 
porate capacity.  That  made  no  change  in  the  legality  of  the  patent. 

From  January,  1630,  until  Plymouth  Colony  was  annexed  to  the 
Province  of  Massachusetts  Bay  in  1692/  the  Warwick  Patent,  like  the 
earlier  Peirce  Patent,  “furnished  the  only  title  that  the  Pilgrims  had  to 
their  lands,”  their  only  legal  defense  against  the  encroachments  of  Mas- 
sachusetts Bay,  and  “the  only  right  they  had  in  law  to  exist  as  a self- 
governing  community.” 

LIST  OF  THE  PATENTS  OBTAINED  BY  OR  FOR 
THE  PLYMOUTH  COLONY 

1.  Wyncop  Patent  of  9 June  1619,  from  the  Virginia  Company  of  Lon- 
don. Text  has  disappeared.  References:  Kingsbury  ed.,  Records  oj  the  Virginia 
Com'pa?iyi  1.  221,  228;  Bradford,  Plymouth  Plantation , 34,  39 n\  1912  ed., 
1.  95;  Andrews,  1.  258-262,  290,  293. 

2.  First  Peirce  Patent,  2 February  1619/20,  from  the  Virginia  Com- 
pany of  London.  Text  has  disappeared.  References:  Kingsbury  ed.,  Records , 1. 
299>  303>  31  U 3J5;  Bradford,  39/2,  60 22,  75,  93 n,  124,  362;/;  1912  ed.,  1. 
101/2,  189 22,  234 22;  Andrews,  1.  261—262,  264,  279—280. 

3.  Second  Peirce  Patent,  i June  1621,  from  the  Council  for  New  Eng- 
land. Original  in  Pilgrim  Hall,  Plymouth;  text  printed  with  facsimile  in  Brad- 
ford 1912  ed.,  1.  246—251.  Preferences:  Samuel  F.  Haven,  “History  of  Grants 
under  the  Great  Council  for  New  England,”  in  Lectures  Before  Lowell  Insti- 
tute on  Early  History  of  Massachusetts  (1867),  148,  152;  Andrews,  1.  279- 
283,  292,  294,  33 7#,  357;  Bradford,  Plymouth  Plantation , 93,  108,  429/2. 

4.  John  Peirce’s  Deed  Poll,  20  April  1622,  from  the  Council  for  New 
England.  Text  has  disappeared  and  it  never  was  put  into  effect.  References, 

7 Except  for  the  Dominion  of  New  England  period,  1686— 1689.  Viola  Barnes,  Do- 
minion of  New  England  (1923),  27-28. 


1951]  The  Pilgrim  Fathers’  Patents  399 

see  page  397  above;  Lectures  Lowell  Institute , 152;  Bradford,  eh.  xii  (1623)  ; 
1912  ed.,  11.  306,  308  and  note. 

5.  Cape  Ann  Patent,  i January  1623/24,  from  Lord  Sheffield  of  the 
Council  for  New  England,  which  had  already  granted  it  to  him.  Original  in 
Essex  Institute,  Salem.  Five  hundred  acres  on  Cape  Ann,  plus  30  acres  for  each 
planter,  to  “lie  together  upon  the  said  [Massachusetts]  Bay  in  one  place,  and 
not  straggling.’’  Text  and  facsimile  of  original  in  1912  ed.,  1.  406—410;  numer- 
ous other  references  in  Bradford’s  text. 

6.  Kennebec  Patent,  1627  or  1628,  from  Council  for  New  England. 
There  is  no  mention  of  this  in  the  Council  Records,  probably  because  it  was 
swallowed  up  in  No.  7.  Text  in  Bradford,  Plymouth  Plantation , 262—263.  Ref" 
crences:  Bradford,  193,  200-202,  21 1,  215,  264-265;  1912  ed.,  11.  18,  40, 
map  at  176;  H.  S.  Burragc,  Beginnings  of  Colonial  Maine,  1602—1658  (Port- 
land, 1914),  185-188,  379.  This  patent  cost  the  Pilgrims  £40;  they  sold  the 
land  in  1661  for  £400  to  a group  of  proprietors  whose  heirs  incorporated  it  as 
the  Kennebec  Purchase  in  1753.  Robert  H.  Gardiner  relates  the  history  of  this 
propriety  in  Maine  Hist.  Coll.  (1847),  11.  269—294. 

7.  Warwick  Patent  to  William  Bradford,  13  January  1629/30,  from  the 
Council  for  New  England.  Original  in  Registry  of  Deeds,  Plymouth.  Text  in 
Ebenezer  Hazard,  Historical  Collections  (1792),  1.  298—303;  Laws  of  New 
Plymouth  (Brigham  ed.),  21—28;  Documentary  History  of  Maine , vii.  108— 
1 16.  References:  Andrews,  1.  356—359;  Lectures  Lowell  Institute , 156—157. 
Bradford,  curiously  enough,  refers  to  this  patent  only  incidentally,  although  it 
was  by  far  the  most  important  one  that  the  colony  received,  describing  its 
boundaries  and  replacing  the  Second  Peirce  Patent  of  1621.  The  so-called  sur- 
render of  this  Warwick  Patent  by  Bradford  and  the  “Old  Comers,”  dated  2 
March  1640/41,  is  printed  in  Bradford,  Plymouth , 428—430;  1912  ed.,  11. 
282-288;  and  Plymouth  Colony  Records , 11.  10.  The  surrender  did  not  invali- 
date the  patent.  It  was  a free  gift  of  Bradford  and  those  he  had  chosen  to  as- 
sociate with  him,  to  the  body  politic. 

The  Peirce  Patent 

\ 

THIS  Indenture  made  the  First  Day  of  June  1621  And  in  the  yeeres 
of  the  raigne  of  our  soveraigne  Lord  James  by  the  grace  of  god  King 
of  England  Scotland  Fraunce  and  Ireland  defender  of  the  faith  etc.  That 
is  to  say  of  England  Fraunce  and  Ireland  the  Nyneteenth  and  of  Scotland 
the  fowre  and  fiftith.  Betwene  the  President  and  Counsell  of  New  Eng- 
land of  the  one  partie  And  John  Peirce  Citizen  and  Clothworker  of 
London  and  his  Associates  of  the  other  partie  Witnesseth  that  whereas 
the  said  John  Peirce  and  his  Associates  have  already  transported  and  un- 


400  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

dertaken  to  transporte  at  their  cost  and  chardges  themselves  and  dyvers 
persons  into  New  England  and  there  to  erect  and  build  a Towne  and 
settle  dyvers  Inhabitantes  for  the  advancem  [en] t of  the  generall  plan- 
tacion  of  that  Country  of  New  England  Now  the  sayde  President  and 
Counsell  in  consideracion  thereof  and  for  the  furtherance  of  the  said 
plantacion  and  incoragem  [en] t of  the  said  Undertakers  have  agreed  to 
graunt  assign  allot  and  appoynt  to  the  said  John  Peirce  and  his  Associates 
and  every  of  them  his  and  their  heires  and  assignes  one  hundred  acres  of 
grownd  for  every  person  so  to  be  transported  besides  dyvers  other  pryvi- 
ledges  Liberties  and  commodyties  hereafter  mencioned.  And  to  that  in- 
tent they  have  graunted  allotted  assigned  and  confirmed,  And  by  theis 
pre[sen]ntes  doe  graunt  allott  assign  and  confirme  unto  the  said  John 
Peirce  and  his  Associates  his  and  their  heires  and  assignes  and  the  heires 
and  assignes  of  every  of  them  severally  and  respectyvelie  one  hundred 
severall  acres  of  grownd  in  New  England  for  every  person  so  transported 
or  to  be  transported,  Yf  the  said  John  Peirce  or  his  Associates  contynue 
there  three  whole  yeeres  either  at  one  or  severall  tymes  or  dye  in  the 
meane  season  after  he  or  they  are  shipped  with  intent  there  to  inhabit.  The 
same  Land  to  be  taken  and  chosen  by  them  their  deputies  or  assignes  in 
any  place  or  places  whersoever  not  already  inhabited  by  any  English  and 
where  no  English  person  or  persons  are  already  placed  or  settled  or  have 
by  order  of  the  said  President  and  Councell  made  choyce  of,  nor  within 
Tenne  myles  of  the  same,  unles  it  be  the  opposite  syde  of  some  great  or 
Navigable  Ryver  to  the  former  particuler  plantacion,  together  with  the 
one  half  of  the  Ryver  or  Ryvers,  that  is  to  say  to  the  middest  thereof  as 
shall  adjoyne  to  such  landes  as  they  shall  make  choyce  of  together  with 
all  such  Liberties  pryviledges  proffittes  and  commodyties  as  the  said  Land 
and  Ryvers  which  they  shall  make  choyce  of  shall  yeild  together  with  free 
libertie  to  fishe  in  and  upon  the  Coast  of  New  England  and  in  all  havens 
portes  and  creekes  Thereunto  belonging  and  that  no  person  or  persons 
whatsoever  shall  take  any  benefitt  or  libertie  of  or  to  any  of  the  grownds 
or  the  one  half  of  the  Ryvers  aforesaid,  excepting  the  free  use  of  high- 
wayes  by  land  and  Navigable  Ryvers,  but  that  the  said  undertakers  and 
planters  their  heires  and  assignes  shall  have  the  sole  right  and  use  of  the 
said  grownds  and  the  one  half  of  the  said  Ryvers  with  all  their  proffittes 
and  appurtennces.  And  forasmuch  as  the  said  John  Peirce  and  his  associ- 
ates intend  and  have  undertaken  to  build  Churches,  Schooles,  Hospitalls 
Towne  howses,  Bridges  and  such  like  works  of  Chary  tie  As  also  for  the 
maynteyning  of  Magistrates  and  other  inferior  Officers,  In  regard  where- 
of and  to  the  end  that  the  said  John  Peirce  and  his  Associates  his  and 


1951]  Flic  Pilgrim  Fathers’  Patents  40 1 

their  heires  and  assignes  may  have  wherewithall  to  beare  and  support 
such  like  charges.  Therefore  the  said  President  and  Councell  aforesaid  do 
graunt  unto  the  said  Undertakers  their  heires  and  assignes  Fiftcene  hun- 
dred acres  of  Land  more  over  and  above  the  aforesaid  proporcion  of  one 
hundred  the  person  for  every  undertaker  and  Planter  to  be  ymployed 
upon  such  publique  uses  as  the  said  Undertakers  and  Planters  shall  thinck 
fitt.  And  they  do  further  graunt  unto  the  said  John  Peirce  and  his  As- 
sociates their  heires  and  assignes,  that  for  every  person  that  they  or  any 
of  them  shall  transport  at  their  owne  proper  costes  and  charges  into  New 
England  either  unto  the  Lands  hereby  graunted  or  adjoyninge  to  them 
within  Seaven  Yeeres  after  the  feast  of  St.  John  Baptist  next  comming 
Yf  the  said  person  transported  contynue  there  three  whole  yeeres  either 
at  one  or  severall  tymes  or  dye  in  the  meane  season  after  he  is  shipped 
with  intent  there  to  inhabit  that  the  said  person  or  persons  that  shall  so  at 
his  or  their  own  charges  transport  any  other  shall  have  graunted  and  al- 
lowed to  him  and  them  and  his  and  their  heirs  respectyvelie  for  every  per- 
son so  transported  or  dyeing  after  he  is  shipped  one  hundred  acres  of  Land, 
and  also  that  every  person  or  persons  who  by  contract  and  agream[en]t 
to  be  had  and  made  with  the  said  Undertakers  shall  at  his  and  their  owne 
charge  transport  him  and  themselves  or  any  other  and  setle  and  plant 
themselves  in  New  England  within  the  said  Seaven  Yeeres  for  three 
yeeres  space  as  aforesaid  or  dye  in  the  meant  tyme  shall  have  graunted 
and  allowed  to  every  person  so  transporting  or  transported  and  their 
heires  and  assignes  respectyvely  the  like  nomber  of  one  hundred  acres  of 
Land  as  aforesaid  the  same  to  be  by  him  and  them  or  their  heires  and  as- 
signes chosen  in  any  entyre  place  together  and  adjoyning  to  the  aforesaid 
Landes  and  not  straglingly  not  before  the  tyme  of  such  choyce  made  pos- 
sessed or  inhabited  by  any  English  Company  or  within  tenne  myles  of  the 
same  (except  it  be  on  the  opposite  side  of  some  great  Navigable  Ryver  as 
aforesaid  Yeilding  and  paying  unto  the  said  President  and  Counsell  for 
every  hundred  acres  so  obteyned  and  possessed  by  the  said  John  Peirce 
and  his  said  Associates  and  by  those  said  other  persons  and  their  heires  and 
assignes  who  by  Contract  as  aforesaid  shall  at  their  own  charges  trans- 
port themselves  or  others  the  Yerely  rent  of  Two  shillinges  at  the  feast  of 
St.  Michaell  Tharchaungell  to  the  hand  of  the  Rentgatherer  of  the  said 
President  and  Counsell  and  their  successors  forever,  the  first  paym[en]t 
to  begyn  after  the  expiracion  of  the  first  seaven  Yeeres  next  after  the  date 
hereof.  And  further  it  shalbe  lawfull  to  and  for  the  said  John  Peirce  and 
his  Associates  and  such  as  contract  with  them  as  aforesaid  their  Ten- 
nantes  and  servantes  upon  dislike  of  or  in  the  Country  to  return  for  Eng- 


402  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

land  or  elsewhere  with  all  their  goodes  and  chattells  at  their  will  and 
pleasure  without  lett  or  disturbaunce  of  any  paying  all  debtes  that  justly 
shalbe  demaunded  And  likewise  it  shalbe  lawfull  and  is  graunted  to  and 
for  the  said  John  Peirce  and  his  Associates  and  Planters  their  heires  and 
assignes  their  Tennantes  and  servantes  and  such  as  they  or  any  of  them 
shall  contract  with  as  aforesaid  and  send  and  ymploy  for  the  said  planta- 
cion  to  goe  and  return  trade  traffique  import  or  transport  their  goodes 
and  merchaundize  at  their  will  and  pleasure  into  England  or  elswhere 
paying  onely  such  dueties  to  the  Kinges  ma[jes]tie  his  heires  and  succes- 
ors  as  the  President  and  Counsell  of  New  England  doe  pay  without  any 
other  taxes  Imposicions  burthens  or  restraintes  whatsoever  upon  them  to 
be  ymposed  (the  rent  hereby  reserved  being  onely  excepted)  And  it  shal- 
be lawfull  for  the  said  Undertakers  and  Planters,  their  heires  and  suc- 
cessors freely  to  truck  trade  and  traffique  with  the  Salvages  in  New  Eng- 
land or  neighboring  thereaboutes  at  their  wills  and  pleasures  without  lett 
or  disturbaunce.  As  also  to  have  libertie  to  hunt  hauke  fish  or  fowle  in 
any  place  or  places  not  now  or  hereafter  by  the  English  inhabited.  And  the 
said  President  and  Counsell  do  covenant  and  promyse  to  and  with  the 
said  John  Peirce  and  his  Associates  and  others  contracted  with  as  afore- 
said his  and  their  heires  and  assignes,  That  upon  law'full  survey  to  be  had 
and  made  at  the  charge  of  the  said  Undertakers  and  Planters  and  lawfull 
informacon  geven  of  the  bowndes,  meetes,  and  quantytie  of  Land  so  as 
aforesaid  to  be  by  them  chosen  and  possessed  they  the  said  President  and 
Counsell  upon  surrender  of  this  p[res]nte  graunt  and  Indenture  and  up- 
on reasonable  request  to  be  made  by  the  said  Undertakers  and  Planters 
their  heires  and  assignes  within  seaven  Yeeres  now  next  coming,  shall 
and  will  by  their  Deede  Indented  and  under  their  Common  seale  graunt 
infeoffe  and  confirme  all  and  ever}''  the  said  landes  so  sett  out  and  bownd- 
ed  as  aforesaid  to  the  said  John  Peirce  and  his  Associates  and  such  as  con- 
tract with  them  their  heires  and  assignes  in  as  large  and  beneficiall  man- 
ner as  the  same  are  in  theis  p [rese]  ntes  graunted  or  intended  to  be  graunt- 
ed to  all  intentes  and  purposes  with  all  and  every  particuler  pryviledge  and 
freedome  reservacion  and  condicion  with  all  dependances  herein  specy- 
fied  and  graunted.  And  shall  also  at  any  tyme  within  the  said  terme  of 
Seaven  Yeeres  upon  request  unto  the  said  President  and  Counsell  made, 
graunt  unto  them  the  said  John  Peirce  and  his  Associates  Undertakers 
and  Planters  their  heires  and  assignes,  Letters  and  Grauntes  of  Incor- 
poracion  by  some  usuall  and  fitt  name  and  tytle  with  Liberty  to  them  and 
their  successors  from  tyme  to  tyme  to  make  orders  Lawes  Ordynaunces 
and  Constitucions  for  the  rule  governement  ordering  and  dyrecting  of 


1951]  The  Pilgrim  Fathers’  Patents  403 

all  persons  to  he  transported  and  settled  upon  the  landes  hereby  graunted, 
intended  to  he  graunted  or  hereafter  to  be  granted  and  of  the  said 
Landes  and  proffittes  thereby  arrysing.  And  in  the  meane  tyme  untill 
such  graunt  made,  Yt  shalbe  lawfull  for  the  said  John  Peirce  his  Associ- 
ates Undertakers  and  Planters  their  heires  and  assignes  by  consent  of  the 
greater  part  of  them  to  establish  such  Lawcs  and  ordynaunces  as  are  for 
their  better  governcm  [cn]t,  and  the  same  by  such  Officer  or  Officers  as 
they  shall  by  most  voyces  elect  and  choose  to  put  in  execucion;  And  lastly 
the  said  President  and  Counsell  do  graunt  and  agree  to  and  with  the  said 
John  Peirce  and  his  Associates  and  others  contracted  with  and  ymployed 
as  aforesaid  their  heires  and  assignes,  T hat  when  they  have  planted  the 
Landes  hereby  to  them  assigned  and  appoynted,  That  then  it  shalbe  law- 
full  for  them  with  the  pryvitie  and  allowaunce  of  the  President  and  Coun- 
sell as  aforesaid  to  make  choyce  of  and  to  enter  into  and  to  have  an  addi- 
tion of  fi f tie  acres  more  for  every  person  transported  into  New  England 
with  like  reservacions  condicions  and  pryviledges  as  are  above  granted  to 
be  had  and  chosen  in  such  place  or  places  where  no  English  shalbe  then 
setled  or  inhabiting  or  have  made  choyce  of  and  the  same  entered  into  a 
book  of  Actes  at  the  tyme  of  such  choyce  so  to  be  made  or  within  tenne 
Myles  of  the  same,  (excepting  on  the  opposite  side  of  some  great  Navigable 
Ryver  as  aforesaid.  And  that  it  shall  and  may  be  lawfull  for  the  said  John 
Peirce  and  his  Associates  their  heires  and  assignes  from  tyme  to  tyme  and 
at  all  tymes  hereafter  for  their  severall  defence  and  savetie  to  encounter 
expulse  repell  and  resist  by  force  of  Armes  aswell  by  Sea  as  by  Land  and 
by  all  wayes  and  meanes  whatsoever  all  such  person  and  persons  as  with- 
out the  especiall  lycense  of  the  said  President  or  Counsell  and  their  suc- 
cessors or  the  greater  part  of  them  shall  attempt  to  inhabit  within  the 
severall  presinctes  and  lymmyttes  of  their  said  Plantacion,  Or  shall  enter- 
prise or  attempt  at  any  tyme  hereafter  distruccion,  Invation,  detryment 
or  annoyaunce  to  the  said  Plantacion.  And  the  said  John  Peirce  and  his 
associates  and  their  heires  and  assignes  do  covennant  and  promyse  to  and 
with  the  said  President  and  Counsell  and  their  successors,  That  they  the 
said  John  Peirce  and  his  Associates  from  tyme  to  tyme  during  the  said 
Seaven  Yeeres  shall  make  a true  Certificat  to  the  said  President  and  Coun- 
sell and  their  successors  from  the  chief  Officers  of  the  places  respectyvely 
of  every  person  transported  and  landed  in  New  England  or  shipped  as 
aforesaid  to  be  entered  by  the  Secretary  of  the  said  President  and  Counsell 
into  a Register  book  for  that  purpose  to  be  kept  And  the  said  John  Peirce 
and  his  Associates  Jointly  and  severally  for  them  their  heires  and  as- 
signes do  covennant  promyse  and  graunt  to  and  w7ith  the  said  President 


404  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

and  Counsell  and  their  successors  That  the  persons  transported  to  this 
their  particuler  Plantacion  shall  apply  themselves  and  their  Labors  in  a 
large  and  competent  manner  to  the  planting  setting  making  and  procur- 
ing of  good  and  staple  commodyties  in  and  upon  the  said  Land  hereby 
graunted  unto  them  as  Corne  and  silkgrasse  hemp  flaxe  pitch  and  tarre 
sopeashes  and  potashes  Yron  Clapbord  and  other  the  like  materialls.  In 
witnes  whereof  the  said  President  and  Counsell  have  to  the  one  part  of 
this  p[rese]nte  Indenture  sett  their  seales1  And  to  th’other  part  hereof 
the  said  John  Peirce  in  the  name  of  himself  and  his  said  Associates  have 
sett  to  his  seale  geven  the  day  and  yeeres  first  above  written. 

Lenox  Hamilton  Warwick  Sheffield  Ferd:  Gorges 

On  the  Verso  of  the  instrument  is  the  following  indorsement: — 
Sealed  and  Delivered  by  my  Lord  Duke  in  the  presence  of 

Edward  Collingwood,  Clerke. 

[This  typescript  made  from  printed  copy  in  Ford  ed.  Bradford,  1.  246-251,  col- 
lated with  the  facsimile  therein  by  Antha  E.  Card.] 

Patent  for  Cape  Anne1 

f S ^HIS  Indenture  made  the  First  day  of  January  Anno  Domini  1623, 
1 And  in  the  Yeares  of  the  Raigne  of  our  Soveraigne  Lord  James  by 
the  grace  of  God  King  of  England  France  and  Ireland  Defender  of  the 
faith  etc.  the  One  and  Twenty th  And  of  Scotland  the  Seaven  and  Fyftyth 
Betweene  the  right  honorable  Edmond  Lord  Sheffeild  Knight  of  the 
most  noble  Order  of  the  Garter  on  thone  part  And  Robert  Cushman  and 
Edward  Winslowe  for  them  selves,  and  theire  Associates  and  Planters  at 
Plymouth  in  New  England  in  America  on  thother  part.  Wytnesseth  that 
the  said  Lord  Sheffeild  (As  well  in  consideracon  that  the  said  Robert  and 
Edward  and  divers  of  theire  Associates  have  already  adventured  them 
selves  in  person,  and  have  likewise  at  theire  own  proper  Costes  and  Charges 
transported  dyvers  persons  into  New  England  aforesaid  And  for  that  the 
said  Robert  and  Edward  and  their  Associates  also  intend  as  well  to  trans- 

1 This  word  looks  a little  like  sealey  with  a punctuation  mark  following  it.  The 
sense  would  seem  to  require  the  plural  j there  were  originally  six  seals  affixed  to  the 
instrument.  C.  D[eane].  Under  each  signature  wras  originally  a strip  of  parchment 
and  a seal,  of  which  four  are  still  attached  to  the  document.  The  sixth  signature  has 
been  torn  from  the  film.  This  Patent  was  first  printed  by  Deane  in  4 Mass.  Hist. 
Soc.  Collections , 11.  156— 163. 

1 This  typescript  made  from  Ford  ed.  Bradford,  1.  407-410.  Collated  with  facsimile 
in  same  by  Antha  E.  Card. 


1951]  The  Pilgrim  Fathers’  Patents  405 

port  more  persons  as  also  further  to  plant  at  Plymouth  aforesaid,  and  in 
other  places  in  New  England  aforesaid  As  for  the  better  Advancement 
and  furtherance  of  the  said  Planters,  and  encouragement  of  the  said  Un- 
dertakers) Hath  Gyven,  graunted,  assigned,  allotted,  and  appointed  And 
by  these  p[rese]nts  doth  Gyve,  graunt,  assigne,  allott,  and  appoint  unto 
and  for  the  said  Robert  and  Edward  and  their  Associates  As  well  a cer- 
taine  Tract  of  Ground  in  New  England  aforesaid  lying  in  Forty-three 
Degrees  or  thereabout  of  Northerly  latitude  and  in  a knowne  place  there 
commonly  called  Cape  Anne,  Together  with  the  free  use  and  benefitt  as 
well  of  the  Bay  comonly  called  the  Bay  of  Cape  Anne,  as  also  of  the  Is- 
lands within  the  said  Bay  And  free  liberty,  to  Fish,  fowle,  hawke,  and 
hunt,  truck,  and  trade  in  the  Lands  thereabout,  and  in  all  other  places  in 
New  England  aforesaid;  whereof  the  said  Lord  Sheffeild  is,  or  hath  byn 
possessed,  or  which  have  byn  allotted  to  him  the  said  Lord  Sheffeild,  or 
within  his  Jurisdiccon  (not  nowe  being  inhabited,  or  hereafter  to  be  in- 
habited by  any  English)  Together  also  with  Fyve  hundred  Acres  of  free 
Land  adjoyning  to  the  said  Bay  to  be  ymployed  for  publique  uses,  as  for 
the  building  of  a Towne,  Scholes,  Churches,  Hospitalls,  and  for  the  mayn- 
tenance  of  such  Ministers,  Officers,  and  Magistrates,  as  by  the  said  un- 
dertakers, and  theire  Associates  are  there  already  appointed,  or  which 
hereafter  shall  (with  theire  good  liking,)  reside,  and  inhabitt  there  And 
also  Thirty  Acres  of  Land,  over  and  besides  the  Fyve  hundred  Acres  of 
Land,  before  menconed  To  be  allotted,  and  appointed  for  every  perticuler 
person,  Young,  or  old  (being  the  Associates,  or  servantes  of  the  said  un- 
dertakers or  their  successors)  that  shall  come,  and  dwell  at  the  aforesaid 
Cape  Anne  within  Seaven  yeares  next  after  the  Date  hereof,  which  Thirty 
Acres  of  Lande  soe  appointed  to  every  person  as  aforesaid,  shall  be  taken 
as  the  same  doth  lye  together  upon  the  said  Bay  in  one  entire  place,  and 
not  stragling  in  dyvers,  or  remote  parcelles  not  exceeding  an  English 
Mile,  and  a halfe  in  length  on  the  Waters  side  of  the  said  Bay  Yeldyng 
and  Paying  forever  yearely  unto  the  said  Lord  Sheffeild,  his  heires,  suc- 
cessors Rent  gatherer,  or  assignes  for  every  Thirty  Acres  soe  to  be 
obteyned,  and  possessed  by  the  said  Robert  and  Edward  theire  heires, 
successors,  or  Associates  Twelve  Pence  of  lawfull  English  money  At  the 
Feast  of  St.  Michaell  Tharchaungell  only  (if  it  be  lawfully  demaunded) 
The  first  payment  thereof  To  begynne  ymediately  from  and  after  thend 
and  expiracon  of  the  first  Seaven  yeares  next  after  the  date  hereof  And 
the  said  Lord  Sheffeild  for  himself  his  heires,  successors,  and  assignes  doth 
Covenant,  promise,  and  graunt  to  and  with  the  said  Robert  Cushman, 
and  Edward  Winslow  theire  heires,  associates,  and  assignes  That  they 


40 6 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

the  said  Robert,  and  Edward,  and  such  other  persons  as  shall  plant,  and 
contract  with  them,  shall  freely  and  quyetly,  have,  hold,  possesse,  and 
enjoy  All  such  profitts,  rights,  previlidges,  benefittes,  Comodities,  advan- 
tages, and  preheminences,  as  shall  hereafter  by  the  labor,  search,  and  dili- 
gence of  the  said  Undertakers  their  Associates,  servantes,  or  Assignes  be 
obteyned,  found  out,  or  made  within  the  said  Tract  of  Ground  soe 
graunted  unto  them  as  aforesaid;  Reserving  unto  the  said  Lord  Shef- 
feild  his  heires,  successors,  and  assignes  The  one  Moyety  of  all  such  Mynes 
as  shall  be  discovered,  or  found  out  at  any  tyme  by  the  said  Undertakers, 
or  any  theire  heires,  successors,  or  assignes  upon  the  Groundes  aforesaid 
And  further  That  it  shall  and  may  be  lawfull  to  and  for  the  said  Robert 
Cushman,  and  Edward  Winslowe  their  heires,  associates,  and  assignes 
from  tyme  to  tyme,  and  at  all  tymes  hereafter  soe  soone  as  they  or  theire 
Assignes  have  taken  possession,  or  entered  into  any  of  the  said  Landes  To 
forbyd,  repell,  repulse  and  resist  by  force  of  Armes  All  and  every  such 
persons  as  shall  build,  plant,  or  inhabitt,  or  which  shall  offer,  or  make 
shew  to  build,  plant,  or  inhabitt  within  the  Landes  soe  as  aforesaid  graunt- 
ed, without  the  leave,  and  licence  of  the  said  Robert,  and  Edward  or  theire 
assignes  And  the  sayd  Lord  Sheffeild  doth  further  Covenant,  and  graunt 
That  upon  a lawfull  survey  hadd,  and  taken  of  the  aforesaid  Landes,  and 
good  informacon  gyven  to  the  said  Lord  Sheffeild  his  heires,  or  assignes, 
of  the  Meates,  Boundes,  and  quantity  of  Landes  which  the  said  Robert, 
and  Edward  their  heires,  associates  or  assignes  shall  take  in  and  be  by 
them  their  Associates,  Servantes,  or  assigns  inhabited  as  aforesaid;  he 
the  said  Lord  Sheffeild  his  heires,  or  assignes,  at  and  upon  the  reasonable 
request  of  the  said  Undertakers,  or  theire  Associates,  shall  and  will  by 
good  and  sufficient  Assurance  in  the  Lawe  Graunt,  enfeoffe,  confirm  and 
allott  unto  the  said  Robert  Cushman  and  Edward  Winslowe  their  Associ- 
ates, and  Assignes  All  and  every  the  said  Landes  soe  to  be  taken  in  within 
the  space  of  Seaven  yeares  next  after  the  Date  hereof  in  as  larg,  ample, 
and  beneficiall  manner,  as  the  said  Lord  Sheffeild  his  heires,  or  assignes 
nowe  have,  or  hereafter  shall  have  the  same  Landes,  or  any  of  them 
graunted  unto  him,  or  them;  for  such  rent,  and  under  such  Covenantes, 
and  Provisoes  as  herein  are  conteyned  ( mutatis  mutandis ) And  shall  and 
will  also  at  all  tymes  hereafter  upon  reasonable  request  made  to  him  the 
said  Lord  Sheffeild  his  heires,  or  assignes  by  the  said  Edward  and  Robert 
theire  heires,  associates,  or  assignes,  or  any  of  them  graunt,  procure,  and 
make  good,  lawfull,  and  sufficient  Letters,  or  other  Grauntes  of  Incor- 
poracon  whereby  the  said  Undertakers,  and  theire  Associates  shall  have 
liberty  and  lawfull  authority  from  tyme  to  tyme  to  make  and  establish 


1951]  The  Pilgrim  Fathers’  Patents  407 

Lawes,  Ordynnces,  and  Constitucons  for  the  ruling,  ordering,  and  gov- 
erning of  such  persons  as  nowe  are  resident,  or  which  hereafter  shalbe 
planted,  and  inhabitt  there  And  in  the  meane  tyme  untill  such  Graunt 
be  made  It  shalbe  lawfull  for  the  said  Robert,  and  Edward  theire  heires, 
associates  and  Assignes  by  consent  of  the  greater  part  of  them  to  Establish 
such  Lawes,  Provisions  and  Ordynnces  as  are  or  shalbe  by  them  thought 
most  fitt,  and  convenient  for  the  governement  of  the  said  plantacon 
which  shall  be  from  tyme  to  tyme  executed,  and  administered  by  such  Of- 
ficer, or  Officers,  as  the  said  Undertakers,  or  their  Associates  or  the  most 
part  of  them  shall  elect,  and  make  choice  of  Provyded  allwaies  That  the 
said  Lawes,  Provisions,  and  Ordynnces  which  are,  or  shall  be  agreed  on, 
be  not  repugnant  to  the  Lawes  of  England,  or  to  the  Orders,  and  Con- 
stitucons of  the  President  and  Councell  of  New  England  Provyded  fur- 
ther That  the  said  Undertakers  theire  heires,  and  successors  shall  forever 
acknowledg  the  said  Lord  Sheffeild  his  heires  and  successors,  to  be  theire 
Chiefe  Lord,  and  to  answeare  and  doe  service  unto  his  Lordshipp  or  his 
Successors,  at  his,  or  theire  Court  when  upon  his,  or  theire  owne  Plan- 
tacon The  same  shalbe  established,  and  kept  In  wytnes  whereof  the  said 
parties  to  these  present  Indentures  Interchaungeably  have  putt  their 
Handes  and  Seales  The  day  and  yeares  first  above  written. 


Seal  'pendent. 


E.  Sheffeyld.2 


The  Warwick  Patent 

13/23  January  1629/30 

UNFORTUNATELY  we  cannot  reproduce  this  from  the  original 
document.  It  is  still  preserved,  under  glass,  in  the  Registry  of  Deeds 
at  Plymouth ; but  the  ink  is  so  faded  that  parts  of  it  can  no  longer  be  de- 
ciphered without  infra-red  light  and  other  apparatus;  and  the  present  Reg- 
istrar of  Deeds  for  Plymouth  County  will  not  allow  it  to  be  removed  from 
the  frame,  or  from  his  office,  for  photography  and  collation. 

There  is,  however,  in  the  Massachusetts  State  Archives,1  in  an  early 
eighteenth-century  hand,  a copy  of  a copy  of  the  Warwick  Patent,  attested 
as  correct  by  Thomas  Hinckley,  Governor  of  Plymouth  Colony  1681— 
1686,  and  1689—1692.  It  was  probably  made  to  use  in  the  eighteenth  cen- 

2 On  the  back  of  the  parchment  is  the  following-  attestation : “Sealed  and  del’d  in  the 
presence  of  John  Bulmer,  Tho:  Belweeld,  John  Fowller.” 

1 Vol.  lxxxvii.  ff.  123-129. 


40 8 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

tury  boundary  controversy  with  Rhode  Island.  This  copy  of  the  Hinckley 
copy  was  the  basis  of  the  text  printed  by  the  Maine  Historical  Society  in 
1901  in  The  Documentary  History  oj  the  State  oj  Maine?  We  have  com- 
pared this  Maine  printed  text  with  the  less  illegible  parts  of  the  original 
document,  and  found  it  to  be  substantially  accurate,  the  only  differences 
noted  being  those  of  spelling  and  punctuation.  The  following  text  has  been 
made  by  comparing  the  Maine  printed  version  with  the  copy  of  the  Hinck- 
ley-attested manuscript  in  the  Massachusetts  Archives. 

To  all  to  Whom  these  presents  shall  come  Greeting;  Whereas  Our 
Late  Souveraigne  Lord  King  James  for  advancement  of  a Collony  & 
Plantation  in  the  Country  Called  or  Known  by  the  Name  of  New  Eng- 
land in  America  By  his  Highnes  Letters  Pattents  under  the  great  Seale  of 
England  bearing  Date  att  Westminster,  the  Third  Day  of  November  in 
the  Eighteenth  yeare  of  his  Highnesses  Reigne  of  England  etc.,  Did  give 
grant  & Confirme  unto  the  Right  honourable  Lodwick  late  Lord  Duke  of 
Lenox  George  late  Lord  Marques  of  Buckingham  James  Marques  Ham- 
ilton Thomas  Earle  of  Arundell  Robert  Earle  of  Warwick  Sir  Ferdinando 
Gorges  Knight  and  divers  others  whose  names  are  Expressed  in  the  said 
Letters  Pattents  and  their  Successors  that  they  should  be  one  Body  Poli- 
tique and  Corporate  Perpetually  Consisting  of  forty  persons,  & that  they 
should  have  perpetuall  Succession  and  One  Common  Seale  to  Serve  for 
the  said  body  And  that  they  and  their  Successors  should  be  Incorporated 
Called  and  Knowne  by  the  name  of  the  Councill  Established  att  Plymouth 
in  the  County  of  Devon  for  the  Planting  Ruling  ordering  and  governing 
of  New  England  in  America,  And  further  alsoe  of  his  Speciall  Grace  Cer- 
taine  Knowledge  and  meere  motion  did  give  grant  and  Confirme  unto 
the  said  President  and  Councell,  and  their  Successors  for  Ever,  under  the 
Reservations  Limitations  and  Declarations  in  the  said  Letters  Patents  Ex- 
pressed All  that  part  and  portion  of  the  said  Country  now  Called  New 
England  in  America,  Scituate  Lyeing  and  being  In  breath  from  forty 
Degrees  of  Northerly  Latitude  from  the  Equenoctiall  Line  to  Forty  eight 
Degrees  of  the  saide  Northerly  Latitude  Inclusively,  and  in  Length  of  and 
in  all  the  Breadth  aforesaide  throughout  the  maine  Land  from  Sea  to  Sea 
together  also  with  all  the  firme  Lands  Soyles  Grounds  Creeks  Inlitts 
Havens  Ports  Seas  Rivers  Islands  Waters  Fishings  Mines  and  Mineralls 
as  well  Royall  Mines  of  Gold  and  Silver  as  other  Mines  and  Mineralls. 
Pretious  Stones  quarries  and  all  and  Singular  the  Commodities  Jurisdic- 
tions Royalties  Priviledges  Franchieses  & Preheminences  both  within  the 


2 2nd  Series  VII  (also  called  The  Farnham  Papers,  1)  pp.  1 09-1 25. 


1951]  The  Pilgrim  Fathers’  Patents  409 

said  Tracts  of  Land  upon  the  Maine  as  also  within  the  said  Islands  ad- 
joyning,  To  have  hold  possess  and  Injoy;  all  and  Singuler  the  afore- 
said Continent  Lands  Territorys  Islands  Hereditaments  and  Precincts 
Sea  water  Fishing  with  all  and  all  manner  their  Commodities  Royalties 
Previledges  Prehemenences  and  Proffitts  that  shall  or  may  arise  from 
thence  with  all  and  Singular  their  appurtenances  and  Every  part  and 
percell  thereof  unto  the  said  Councill  and  their  Successors  and  Assignes 
for  Ever  To  be  holden  of  his  Majesties  his  heires  and  Successors  as  of  his 
Manner  [r/V]  of  East  Greenwich  In  the  County  of  Kent  In  Free  & Com- 
mon Soccage  & not  in  Capite  nor  by  Knight  Service.  Yeilding  and  payeing 
therefore  unto  the  late  Kings  Majestie  his  heires  & successors  a Fifth  part 
of  the  Oare  of  Gold  and  Silver  which  from  time  to  time  and  att  all  times 
from  the  Date  of  the  said  Letters  Pattents  Shall  be  there  gotten  had  and 
Obtained  for  and  in  Respect  of  all  and  all  manner  of  Dutyes  Demands 
and  Services  Whatsoever  to  be  Done3  and  paid  unto  his  said  Late  Majestie 
his  heires  and  Successors  as  in  and  by  the  said  Letters  Pattents  amongst 
Sundry  other  Priviledges  and  matters  therein  Contained  more  fully  and 
att  Large  it  doth  and  may  appeare  Now  know  yee  that  the  said  Coun- 
cill by  Virtue  and  Authority  of  his  said  Majesties  Letters  Pattents  & for  and 
in  Consideration  that  William  Bradford  and  his  Associates  have  for  these 
nine  yeares  lived  in  New  England  aforesaid  and  have  there  Inhabited  and 
planted  a Towne  Called  by  the  Name  of  New  Plymouth  at  their  Owne 
proper  Costs  and  Charge  and  now  Seeing  that  by  the  Speciall  Providence 
of  God  and  their  Extraordinary  Care  and  Industry  they  have  incressed 
their  Plantation  to  neere  three  hundred  People  and  are  upon  all  Occas- 
sion  able  to  releive  any  new  Planters  or  other  his  Majesties  Subjects  who 
may  fall  upon  that  Coaste  Have  Given  granted  Bargained  and  Sold 
Enfeoffied  allotted  assigned  and  sett  Over  and  by  these  presents  Doe 
Clearely  and  absolutely  Give  grant  Bargaine  Sell  Allien  in  Fee  of  alott 
Assign  And  Confirme  unto  the  said  Wm.  Bradford  his  heires  associates  & 
assignes  all  that  part  of  New  England  in  America  aforesaid  and  Tract 
and  Tracts  of  Land  that  Lyes  within  or  betweene  a Certaine  Revolett  or 
Runlett  there  commonly  called  Cohasett  alias  Conahasett  towards  the 
North  and  the  River  Commonly  Called  Narragansett  River  towards  the 
South,  and  the  great  Westerne  Ocean  towards  the  East,  and  betweene, 
and  within  a Streight  Line  directly  Extending  up  Into  the  Maine  Land 
towards  the  west  from  the  mouth  of  the  said  River  called  Narragansett 
River  to  the  nttmost  bounds  of  a Country  or  place  in  New  England  Com- 
monly called  Poconockett  alias  Sawnonsett;  Westward  and  an  other 


3 This  is  followed  by  “made”  in  the  original. 


4 1 o The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

Streight  line  Extending  it  self  Directly  from  the  Mouth  of  the  said  River 
Called  Cohasett  alias  Conahasett  towards  the  West  So  farr  up  into  the 
Maine  Land  Westwards  as  the  Utmost  Limitts  of  the  said  place  or  Country 
Commonly  called  Poconockett  alias  Sawamsett  Do  Extend  together  with 
one  half  of  the  said  River  called  Narragansett  River  and  the  said  Revolett 
or  Runlett  called  Cohasett  alias  Conahasett  and  all  Lands  Rivers  waters 
havens  Ports  Creeks  Fishings  fowlings  and  all  hereditaments  Proffitts 
Commodityes  and  Imoluments  Whatsoever  Scituate  Lyeing  and  being  or 
ariseing  within  or  betweene  the  said  Limitts  or  bounds  or  any  of  them  and 
for  as  much  as  they  have  no  Convenient  Place  either  of  Trade  or  of  Fish- 
ing within  their  Owne  precincts  whereby  after  Soe  Long  travell  and  great 
paines  so  hopefull  a plantation  may  subsist,  as  also  that  they  may  be  in- 
couraged  the  better  to  proceed  in  soe  pious  a worke  which  may  Especially 
tend  to  the  propagation  of  Religion,  and  the  great  Increase  of  Trade  to 
his  Majesties  Realms,  and  advancement  of  the  publick  Plantation,  the  said 
Councill  hath  further  Given  granted  Bargained  sold  Enfeofed  a Lotted 
and  Sett  over  and  by  these  presents  doe  Clearely  and  absolutely  give  grant 
bargaine  Sell  Alien  Inffeofe  a Lott  assigne  and  Confirme  unto  the  said 
Wm.  Bradford  his  heirs  associates  and  assignes  all  that  Tract  of  Land  or 
part  of  New  England  in  America  aforesaid  which  lyeth  within  or  be- 
tweene and  Extendeth  it  self  from  the  utmost  of  Cobestcont  alias  Comase- 
cont  Which  adjoyneth  to  the  River  Kenibeck  alias  Kenebeckick  towards 
the  Westerne  Ocean  and  a place  called  the  falls  of  Nequamkick  in  Ameri- 
ca aforesaid  and  the  Space  of  Fifteen  English  milles  on  Each  Side  of  the 
said  River  Commonly  called  Kenebeck  River  and  all  the  said  River  Called 
Kenebeck  that  Lyes  within  the  said  Limitts  and  Bounds  Eastward  West- 
ward Northward  and  Southward  Last  afore  mentioned,  and  all  Lands 
Grounds  Soyles  Rivers  Waters  Fishing  hereditaments  and  profitts  what- 
soever Scituate  Lying  and  being  arising  hapening  and  Accrueing  or  which 
shall  arise  hapen  or  Accrue  in  and  within  the  said  Limitts  and  bounds  or 
either  of  them  togeather  with  free  Ingress  Egress,  & regress  with  Shipps 
Boats  Shallops  and  other  Vessels  from  the  Sea  Commonly  Called  the 
Westerne  Ocean  to  the  said  River  called  Kenebeck  and  from  the  River 
to  the  said  Westerne  Ocean  togeather  with  all  prerogatives  Rights  Royal- 
ties Jurisdictions  Priviledges  Franchies  Libertyes  and  Emunities;  and  also 
Marine  Lyberty  with  the  Escheats  and  Causalityes  thereof  (the  Admiralty 
Jurisdiction  Excepted)  with  all  the  Interests  Rights  titles  Clame  and  De- 
mand whatsoever  which  the  said  Councill  and  their  Successors  now  have 
or  ought  to  have  and  clayme  and  may  have  and  acquire  hereafter  in  or  to 
any  the  said  Portions  or  Tracts  of  Lands  hereby  mentioned  to  be  granted 
or  any  the  preheminences,  In  as  free  Large  Ample  & benefitiall  manner  to 


1951]  The  Pilgrim  Fathers’  Patents  4 1 1 

all  Intents  and  purposes  Whatsoever,  as  the  Said  Councill  by  virtue  of  his 
Majesties  Letters  pattents  may  or  can  grant  To  Have  and  to  hold  the 
said  Tract  and  tracts  of  Land  and  all  and  Singuler  the  premisses  above 
mentioned,  to  be  granted  with  their  & every  of  their  appurtenances  to  the 
said  Wm.  Bradford  his  heires  associates  and  assignes  for  ever  to  the  Onely 
proper  and  absolute  use  and  behoofe  of  the  said  Wm.  Bradford  his  heires 
Associates  and  assignes  for  Ever,  Yeilding  and  payeing  unto  Our  said  late 
Soveraigne  Lord  the  King  his  heires  and  Successors  for  Ever  One  fifth 
part  of  the  Oare  of  the  mines  of  Gold  and  Silver,  and  one  other  fifth  part 
thereof  to  the  president  and  Councill,  which  shall  be  had  possest  and  ob- 
teined  within  the  precincts  aforesaid  for  all  Services  & demands  Whatso- 
ever And  the  said  Councill  Do  further  Grant  And  agree  to  and  With  the 
said  Wm.  Bradford  his  heires  associates  and  assignes  and  Every  of  them 
his  and  their  Factors  Agents  Tenants  and  Servants  and  all  such  as  he  or 
they  shall  send  or  Imploy  about  his  said  perticular  Plantation  Shall  and 
may  from  time  to  time  freely  and  Lawfully  Trade  and  trafique  as  well 
with  the  English  as  any  of  the  Natives  within  the  precincts  aforesaid  with 
Liberty  of  Fishing  upon  any  Part  of  the  Sea  Coasts  and  Sea  Shores  of  any  of 
the  Seas  or  Islands  ajacent  & not  being  Inhabited  or  otherwise  disposed 
by  order  of  the  said  president  and  Councill,  & also  to  Import  Export  and 
transport  their  Cattle  and  Merchandize  att  their  Will  & pleasure  payeing 
Onely  such  Duty  to  the  Kings  Majestie  his  heires  & Successors  as  the  said 
president  and  Councill  doe  or  ought  to  pay,  without  any  other  taxes  Im- 
positions Burdens  or  Restictions  \_sic~\  upon  them,  to  be  Impassed,  And 
further  the  said  Councill  doe  grant  and  agree,  to  & with  the  said  Wm. 
Bradford  his  heires  Associates  and  Assignes,  that  the  Persons  Transported 
by  him  or  any  of  them  shall  not  be  taken  away  Imployed  or  Commanded 
Either  by  the  Governour  for  the  time  being  of  New  England  or  by  any 
other  Authority  there  from  the  Bussiness  and  Imployements  of  the  said 
Wm.  Bradford  and  his  Associates  his  heires  and  assignes;  Nessasary  def- 
fence  of  the  Country  Preservation  of  peace  Supresseing  of  tumults  with 
in  the  Land,  Tryalls  in  matters  of  Justice  by  appeall  upon  a speciall  Oc- 
cassion  onely  Excepted,  also  it  shall  be  Lawfull  and  free  for  the  said  Wm 
Bradford  his  associates  heires  and  assignes  att  all  times  hereafter,  to  In- 
corporate By  some  usuall  and  fitt  name  and  title  him  & themselves  or  the 
people  there  Inhabiting  under  him  or  them,  with  Liberty  to  them  and 
their  Successors  from  time  to  time  to  frame  and  make  Orders  Ordinances 
and  Constitutions  as  well  as  for  the  better  government  of  their  affaires 
here  and  the  Receiveing  or  Admitting  any  to  his  or  their  Society,  as  Also 
for  the  better  Government  of  his  or  their  People  and  affaires  in  New  Eng- 
land or  of  his  and  their  people  att  Sea  in  goeing  thether  or  Returning  from 


412  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

thence  and  the  Same  to  be  put  in  Execussion  or  Caused  to  be  put  in  Execu- 
tion by  such  Officers  and  Ministers  as  he  and  they  shall  Authorize  and 
Depute  Provided  the  said  Laws  and  Orders  be  not  repugnant  to  the  Lawes 
of  England  or  the  forme  of  Government  by  the  President  and  Councill 
hereafter  to  be  Established;  And  further  itt  shall  be  Lawfull  and  free  for 
the  said  Wm  Bradford  his  heires  Associates  and  Assignes  to  Transport 
Cattle  of  all  Kinds  also  powder  Shott  Ordinances  and  amunition  from  time 
to  time  as  shall  be  necessary  for  their  Strength  and  Safty  hereafter;  for 
their  severall  Deffences  and  safty  to  Encounter  Expulse  repell  and  resist 
by  force  of  Arms  as  well  by  Sea  as  by  Land  by  all  Wayes  and  means  what- 
soever, And  by  Virtue  of  Authority  to  us  derived  by  his  Late  Majesties 
Letters  Pattents  To  take  apprehend  Seize  and  make  prisse ; of  all  such  per- 
sons their  shipps  and  goods  as  shall  attempt  to  Inhabit  and  trade  with  the 
Salvages  people  of  that  Country  within  the  severall  precincts  and  Limitts 
of  his  and  their  Severall  plantacions  or  shall  Interprise  or  attempt  att  any 
time  destruction  Invaision  detrement  or  anoyance,  to  his  or  their  planta- 
tions the  one  moyetv  of  which  goods  so  seized  or  taken  it  shall  be  Lawfull 
for  the  said  Wm  Bradford  his  heires  Associates  and  assignes  to  take  to 
their  Owne  use  and  behoofe  and  the  other  moyetie  thereof  to  be  Delivered 
by  the  said  Wm  Bradford  his  heires  Associates  and  assignes  to  such  Officers 
as  shall  be  appointed  to  receive  the  same  for  his  Majesties  use  And  the  said 
Councill  doe  hereby  Covenant  and  Declare  that  it  is  their  Intent  and 
meaning  for  the  good  of  the  plantations  that  the  said  Wm  Bradford  his 
heires  Associates  his  or  their  heires  and  assignes  shall  have  and  Injoy  what- 
soever priviledge  or  priviledges  of  What  Kind  so  Ever  as  are  Expressed 
or  intended  to  be  Granted  in  and  by  his  said  Late  Majesties  Letters  Pattents 
and  that  In  as  Large  and  ample  manner  as  the  said  Councill  thereby  now 
may  or  hereafter  Can  grant  (Coyning  of  money  Excepted)  and  the  said 
Councill  for  them  and  their  Successors  Do  Covenant  and  grant  to  & with 
the  said  Wm  Bradford  his  heires  Associates  and  assignes  by  these  presents 
that  they  the  said  Councill  shall  att  any  time  hereafter  upon  Request,  att 
the  onely  proper  Charge  and  Costs  of  the  said  Wm  Bradford  his  heires 
associates  and  assignes  Do  make  Suffer  Execute  and  Willingly  Consent 
unto  any  other  Act  or  Acts  Conveyances  assurance  or  assurances,  what- 
soever; for  the  good  and  perfect  Investing  assureing  and  Conveyeing  and 
sure  makeing  of  all  the  aforesaid  Tract  or  Tracts  of  Lands  Royalty es 
mines  and  Mineralls  Woods  Fishings  and  all  & singular  their  appurte- 
nances unto  the  said  Wm.  Bradford  his  heires  associates  and  assignes  as 
by  him  or  them  or  his  or  their  heirs  And  Assignes  or  his  or  their  Councill 
Learned  in  the  Law  shall  be  devissed  advised  or  required  and  Lastly 
Know  Ye  that  wee  the  Councill  have  made  Constituted  and  Deputed  au- 


1 951]  The  Pilgrim  Fathers’  Patents  41 3 

thorized  and  appointed,  Captain  Miles  Standish  or  in  his  absence  Edward 
Winslow,  John  Howland  and  John  Alden  or  any  of  them  to  be  Our  true 
and  Lawfull  Attorney  & Attornys  Joyntly  & Severaly  in  Our  Name  and 
Steed  to  enter  into  the  said  Tract  or  Tracts  of  Land  and  their  premisses 
with  their  appurtenances  or  into  Some  part  thereof  in  the  name  of  the 
Whole  for  Us  and  in  Our  name  to  take  poss[ess]ion  and  Seizen  thereof 
and  after  such  poss[esslion  & Seizen  thereof  or  some  part  thereof  in  the 
Name  of  the  Whole,  had  and  taken  there  for  Us  and  in  Our  Names  to  de- 
liver the  full  and  peaceable  possession  and  Seizen  of  all  & Singular  the  said 
mentioned  to  he  granted  premisses  unto  the  said  Wm.  Bradford  his  heires 
associates  and  assignes  or  to  his  or  their  Certaine  attorney  in  that  behalf 
Ratifieing  allowing  Confirming  all  whatsoever  Our  said  attorney  shall 
doe  in  or  about  the  premisses  In  Witness  Whereof  the  Councill  Estab- 
lished att  Plymouth  in  the  County  of  Devon  for  the  Planting  ruling  Or- 
dering and  Governing  of  New  England  In  America  have  hereunto  put 
their  hand  and  Seale  this  thirteenth  Day  of  January  in  the  fifth  yeare  of 
the  Reigne  of  Our  Soveraigne  Lord  Charles  by  the  Grace  of  God  King 
of  England  Scottland  France  & Ireland  &c  DefFender  of  the  faith  &c 
Anno  Domini  1629./ 

ROBERT  WARWICK  [Seal] 

The  within  named  John  Alden  Authorized  as  attorney  for  the  within 
mentioned  Councill  haveing  in  their  name  and  Steed  Entred  into  some 
part  of  the  within  mentionned  tract  of  Land  and  others  the  premises  in  the 
name  of  the  whole  and  for  them  and  in  their  names  taken  possession  Seizen 
thereof  and  did  in  the  name  of  the  President  and  Councill  Deliver  the  full 
and  peaceable  possession  and  Seizen  of  all  and  singular  the  within  men- 
tioned to  be  granted  premisses  unto  Wm  Bradford  for  him  his  heires  as- 
sociates and  assignes 

Secundum  Forma  [ obliterated ] 

In  presence  oj 

James  Condworth 
William  Clarke 
Nathaniel  Morton,  Secretary 

V era  Copia  Compared  with  the  Originall 
Ita  attest. 

Tho:  Hinckley, 

Governour 


414  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 
Mr.  Douglas  Edward  Leach  read  a paper  entitled: 

The  Question  of  French  Involvement  in 
King  Philip’s  War 

FOR  many  years  historians  and  antiquarians  have  told  and  retold  the 
story  of  the  relations  between  Indians  and  English  settlers  in  early 
New  England  which  produced  the  bitter  and  decisive  struggle  called 
King  Philip’s  War.  The  available  documents  and  records  have  been  sifted 
again  and  again  until  it  seems  that  every  possible  fact  about  the  subject 
must  now  certainly  be  known.  All  authorities  are  agreed  that  the  Indian 
uprising  of  1675—1676  dealt  a shocking  blow  to  the  young  colonies  of 
Massachusetts,  Plymouth,  Rhode  Island,  and  Connecticut.  Whole  towns 
were  wiped  out,  and  the  frontier  of  English  settlement  was  pushed  many 
miles  back  toward  the  coast.  The  relatively  small  English  population  in  the 
area  suffered  very  heavy  casualties  as  well  as  tremendous  damage  to  homes 
and  property,  and  the  people  were  taxed  almost  to  the  breaking  point  in 
order  to  sustain  the  war  effort. 

Despite  all  the  hundreds  upon  hundreds  of  pages  which  have  been 
written  about  King  Philip’s  War,  one  question,  at  least,  still  awaits  a de- 
finitive answer.  Briefly  stated,  that  question  is  this:  In  the  years  preceding 
King  Philip’s  War  and  during  the  period  of  the  war  itself,  what  relation- 
ship existed  between  the  French  of  Canada  and  the  Indian  tribes  of  New 
England?  In  other  words,  can  the  French  be  convicted  of  having  given 
encouragement  and  support  to  the  Indians  in  their  resistance  against  the 
advance  of  English  civilization?  Were  the  French  actually  instigators  of 
the  Indian  uprising,  and  allies  of  Philip,  or  were  they  free  of  any  involve- 
ment in  this  particular  conflict?  Here  is  an  historical  mystery  to  evoke  the 
detective  instinct  in  all  of  us. 

Actually,  we  are  confronted  not  by  just  a single  question,  but  by  three. 
Firstly,  what  sort  of  relationship  existed  between  the  French  and  the  Al- 
gonkins  in  the  years  prior  to  King  Philip’s  War?  Next,  did  the  French 
persuade  the  Indians  to  attack  the  English  in  1675?  Finally,  to  what  ex- 
tent did  the  French  assist  the  Indians  with  arms,  supplies,  and  advice  dur- 
ing the  course  of  the  war? 

The  background  of  the  problem  can  be  sketched  in  very  rapidly.  By 
1675  both  the  English  and  the  French  had  established  mainland  colonies 
in  the  New  World,  the  French  being  settled  along  the  banks  of  the  St. 


1951]  The  French  in  King  Philip’s  War  415 

Lawrence  River,  and  the  English  along  the  Atlantic  coast  from  New 
England  to  Carolina.  In  the  area  of  present-day  New  England  and  New 
York  were  found  various  tribes  of  Indians  representing  a relatively  primi- 
tive civilization  which  was  fighting  for  its  life  against  the  advance  of  ag- 
gressive European  cultures.  Actually,  the  Indians  themselves  were  un- 
able to  present  a united  front  against  the  white  men,  for  the  great  Iroquois 
Confederacy  of  upper  New  York  was  traditionally  hostile  to  the  Algonkian 
tribes  of  New  England.  Thus  the  fierce  and  warlike  Mohawks  were  an 
ever-present  scourge  to  the  Mohegan,  Nipmuck,  Narragansett,  and  Wam- 
panoag  tribes  which  occupied  territory  in  southern  New  England.  More- 
over, the  chasm  of  enmity  which  separated  various  Indian  groups  was 
duplicated  in  the  growing  rivalry  between  the  English  and  the  French 
settlements.  Quite  naturally,  the  Indians  took  advantage  of  this  funda- 
mental division,  while  the  white  men  were  equally  ready  to  play  upon  the 
old  hostility  which  separated  the  Iroquois  tribes  from  the  Algonkins.  The 
pivotal  group  was  always  the  Iroquois  Confederacy  of  the  Five  Nations, 
which  hated  the  French,  and  cooperated  with  the  English.  In  turn,  the 
hostility  which  characterized  relations  between  the  French  and  the  Iro- 
quois tended  to  foster  a natural  sympathy  between  the  French  and  the  Al- 
gonkian tribes  of  southern  New  England,  who  were  suffering  greatly 
from  Iroquois  pressure  against  their  territory.  Out  of  this  background 
came  the  terrible  Indian  war  of  1675—1676. 

The  conflict  traditionally  bears  the  name  of  its  instigator  and  chief  lead- 
er, King  Philip  of  the  Wampanoags,  but  once  started,  the  war  quickly 
spread  like  a prairie  fire  and,  in  a sense,  escaped  from  Philip’s  control.  Be- 
fore the  issue  was  settled,  the  whole  frontier  of  New  England  was  ablaze, 
and  a horribly  large  percentage  of  both  Indians  and  white  men  had  lost 
their  lives  as  a result.  All  available  evidence  indicates  that  this  was  the  most 
devastating  war  in  New  England’s  history. 

To  begin  our  consideration  of  the  case,  we  have  before  us  a possible  mo- 
tive for  French  support  of  the  Indians  during  the  period  in  question.  If 
the  English  settlements  in  New  England  could  be  made  completely  un- 
safe for  their  inhabitants  because  of  Indian  hostility,  if  enough  villages 
could  be  totally  destroyed  and  enough  planting  fields  rendered  useless, 
then  the  English  might  have  to  abandon  New  England  altogether  or  at 
least  withdraw  to  the  coast.  Thereupon  the  French  would  be  able  to  occu- 
py the  abandoned  area,  cement  their  already  friendly  relationship  with  the 
local  Indians,  and  thus  extend  their  control  over  much  new  territory. 
Once  firmly  entrenched  in  New  England,  the  French  would  be  able  to 


41 6 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

exploit  more  effectively  a growing  trade  with  the  Indian  tribes.  This,  then, 
is  the  probable  motive  in  the  case.  What  evidence  can  we  find  to  support 
the  charge? 

For  many  years  prior  to  1675  the  New  England  colonists  believed  that 
they  saw  increasing  signs  of  French  activity  among  the  neighboring  In- 
dians. Rumors  of  French  traders  selling  guns  and  ammunition  to  the  na- 
tives, stories  of  malicious  Jesuit  missionaries  going  into  the  Indian  villages 
with  a message  of  death  to  the  white  Protestants,  continued  to  sweep 
across  New  England  during  the  prewar  years.  It  became  common  opinion 
that  the  government  at  Quebec  was  deliberately  trying  to  stir  up  the  In- 
dians against  the  English  colonies.  Unfortunately,  the  only  evidence  now 
available  on  this  question  is  either  hearsay  or  circumstantial.  Much  of  it 
consists  of  the  biased  testimony  of  people  who  dreaded  the  advance  of 
French  power  in  North  America,  and  saw  a Jesuit  priest  under  every  In- 
dian bed. 

Roger  Williams  was  one  who  became  greatly  alarmed  by  the  increas- 
ing signs  of  an  expanding  French  influence  among  the  neighboring  sav- 
ages, and  wrote  that  “the  French  and  Romish  Jesuits,  the  firebrands  of 
the  world  for  their  god  belly  sake,  are  kindling  at  our  back,  in  this  country 
. . . against  us,  of  which  I know  and  have  daily  information.”1  Major 
John  Mason,  the  aging  hero  of  the  Pequot  War,  was  another  prominent 
settler  who  became  convinced  that  behind  the  recurring  troubles  with  the 
local  Indians  lay  a crafty  French  scheme  for  destroying  the  English  col- 
onies. On  18  March  1668/9  Mason  informed  Connecticut’s  Governor 
Winthrop  of  current  rumors  to  the  effect  that  vast  sums  of  French  wam- 
pum had  recently  been  paid  to  neighboring  Indians,  and  openly  expressed 
his  fear  of  a secret  plot  against  the  English.2  The  stories  about  French 
wampum  continued  to  circulate  during  the  next  few  months,  and  became 
more  persistent  as  the  suspicious  behavior  of  the  Niantic  sachem  Ninigret 
was  brought  to  light.  Out  of  this  situation  emerged  the  great  war  scare  of 
1669  which  prompted  Major  Mason  to  restate  his  suspicion  “that  much 
French  wampom  hath  an  influence  into  these  matters.”3  Mason’s  reputa- 
tion as  an  old  Indian  fighter  and  a prominent  politician  made  his  views 
all  the  more  plausible  in  the  eyes  of  many,  and  so  his  suspicions  of  the 
French  at  this  time  helped  to  increase  the  public  apprehension,  although 
Ninigret,  like  the  old  fox  that  he  was,  publicly  and  flatly  asserted  that  he 

1 Collections,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  1st  ser.,  1.  275;  Narragansett  Club 
Publications , vi.  349. 

2 Collections , Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  4th  ser.,  VII  (Winthrop  Papers),  426. 

3 Connecticut  Archives,  Indians  1,  Document  12. 


1951]  The  French  in  King  Philip’s  War  417 

didn’t  even  know  in  what  part  of  the  world  the  Frenchmen  lived.4  When 
prominent  leaders  such  as  Williams  and  Mason  were  openly  suspecting  a 
French  plot,  is  it  any  wonder  that  the  common  people  quickly  caught  the 
growing  fever  of  apprehension? 

Nevertheless,  a few  people  in  New  England  still  remained  unconvinced 
by  the  mass  of  circumstantial  evidence  even  after  the  outbreak  of  actual 
warfare,  and  refused  to  believe  that  French  intrigue  had  played  any  sig- 
nificant part  in  causing  the  conflict.  One  of  these  dissenters  was  Rev.  Wil- 
liam Hubbard,  who  could  claim  to  be  something  of  an  authority  on  the 
day-by-day  developments  of  the  war.  In  support  of  his  opinion  Hubbard 
pointed  out  that  France  was  certain  to  obtain  greater  benefit  from  a con- 
tinued commerce  with  the  New  England  colonies  than  from  their  de- 
struction, and  argued  that  Quebec  was  really  too  far  from  New  England 
to  develop  much  of  a contact  with  the  local  Indians.5  But  the  small  minori- 
ty who  agreed  with  William  Hubbard  was  almost  completely  drowned  out 
by  the  overwhelming  voice  of  the  majority.  To  most  people  in  the  English 
colonies  the  sinister  role  of  French  priests  and  traders  was  an  unquestioned 
fact,  and  this  rapidly  solidifying  opinion  became  enshrined  in  the  popular 
history  of  the  day.  It  was  given  official  support  on  25  August  1679  in  a 
letter  addressed  by  the  Commissioners  of  the  United  Colonies  to  the  royal 
government  in  England.  With  reference  to  the  recent  Indian  war,  the 
Commissioners  testified  that:  “.  . . we  have  . . . just  ground  not  only  to 
fear,  but,  without  the  breach  of  the  rules  of  charity,  to  conclude,  that 
these  malicious  designs  [we],  t^le  Jesuits  (those  grand  enemies  to  his  maj- 
esty’s crown,  as  well  as  to  the  protestant  religion,  by  us  professed)  have 
had  their  influences  in  the  contrivement  thereof,  and  of  the  certainty 
thereof  we  have  been  credibly  informed  by  both  Indians  and  English,  at 
home  and  abroad.”6 

Clearly,  the  evidence  concerning  French  activity  among  the  Indians  of 
New  England  in  the  years  preceding  King  Philip’s  War  is  at  best  inde- 
cisive, and  the  modern  student  of  the  period  may  be  inclined  to  scoff  at  the 
idea  of  a prewar  French  plot.  But  with  the  actual  outbreak  of  open  Indian 
warfare  in  1675  the  worst  suspicions  of  the  English  colonists  seemed  to  be 
confirmed  in  dramatic  fashion.  Enemy  Indians  captured  by  the  English 

4 John  Russell  Bartlett,  ed.,  Records  of  the  Colony  of  Rhode  Island  and  Providence 
Plantations  in  New  England , 11.  267,  274—275. 

5 William  Hubbard,  The  Present  State  of  New-England  (London,  1677),  Part  11, 
82-83. 

6 Collections , Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  1st  ser.,  v.  227;  Connecticut  Ar- 
chives, Foreign  Correspondence  1,  Document  155  Calendar  State  Papers , Colonial , 
1677— 1680,  4°9* 


41 8 The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

forces  frequently  confessed  that  Philip  and  his  followers  were  receiving 
material  aid  from  Canada.  These  reports  were  given  added  color  by  wide- 
ly circulated  stories  to  the  effect  that  the  French  woodsmen  were  on  such 
good  terms  with  the  savages  that  they  frequently  married  Indian  women, 
and  adopted  the  Indian  way  of  life.7  Friendly  Indians,  sent  out  as  spies  by 
the  English  in  the  winter  of  1675—1676,  returned  with  a definite  report 
concerning  French  involvement  in  the  war.  As  recorded  by  eager  Eng- 
lish interrogators,  their  report  on  recent  French  activity  included  the  fol- 
lowing statement:  “The  Frenchmen,  that  went  up  from  Boston  to  Nor- 
wuthick  [Hadley],  were  with  the  Indians,  and  shewed  them  some  letters, 
and  burnt  some  papers  there,  and  bid  them  they  should  not  burn  mills  nor 
meeting-houses,  for  there  God  was  worshipped;  and  told  them  that  they 
would  come  by  land,  and  assist  them,  and  would  have  Connecticut  river, 
and  that  ships  would  come  from  France  and  stop  up  the  bay,  to  hinder 
English  ships  and  soldiers  coming.”8  How  much  credence  can  be  given  to 
a report  of  this  kind?  The  spies  who  brought  back  the  information  had  re- 
ceived it  from  the  lips  of  enemy  Indians  who,  perhaps  suspecting  their 
mission,  may  have  created  a false  report  in  the  hope  that  it  would  reach 
the  ears  of  the  English.  However,  it  seems  more  likely  that  Frenchmen 
actually  had  been  with  the  enemy  Indians,  and  probably  had  made  ex- 
travagant promises  of  aid.  But  there  is  no  indication  that  these  enterpris- 
ing Frenchmen  spoke  for  the  government  at  Quebec,  or  indeed  did  any- 
thing more  than  make  their  wild  promises  and  predictions  for  the  purpose 
of  winning  the  good  will  and  the  trade  of  the  local  Indians. 

On  25  February  additional  information  was  obtained  from  a young 
English  settler  who  had  recently  been  a prisoner  among  the  enemy  In- 
dians. During  his  captivity  this  man  was  taken  to  a great  meeting  or  ren- 
dezvous of  the  savages  on  the  banks  of  the  Hoosic  River.  At  this  place  were 
gathered  over  two  thousand  Indian  warriors,  among  whom  were  some 
five  or  six  hundred  French  Indians  with  straws  through  their  noses.  The 
savages,  proud  of  this  great  display  of  fighting  strength,  made  the  prisoner 
count  the  assembled  multitude  three  separate  times,  in  order  to  impress 

7 Calendar  State  Papers , Domestic,  1675— 1676,  43 5>  438;  1676-1677,  300;  Calen- 
dar State  Papers,  Colonial,  1675— 1676,  372—373;  Massachusetts  Archives,  lxviii, 
Documents  199—2015  F.  L.  Gay  Transcripts,  Plymouth  Papers  1.  In  the  library  of 
the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society. 

8 Collections,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  1st  ser.,  VI.  207;  Connecticut  Ar- 
chives, War  1,  Document  35c}  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Miscellaneous  ill. 
See  also  Increase  Mather,  A Brief  History  of  the  War  With  the  Indians  in  Ne^tv- 
England  [London,  1676],  Samuel  C.  Drake,  ed.  (Albany,  1862),  1 1 7 ; Calendar 
State  Papers,  Colonial , 1675— 1676,  350. 


1951]  The  French  in  King  Philip’s  War  419 

him  with  their  numbers.  They  freely  boasted  of  their  plans  to  destroy  the 
towns  along  the  Connecticut  River  and  then  to  attack  eastern  Massachu- 
setts and  Boston  itself.  They  claimed  to  be  on  very  friendly  terms  with 
the  French,  who  sent  them  supplies  of  ammunition  from  Canada.0  This 
story  would  seem  to  support  the  previous  accounts  of  French  involvement 
in  the  war,  but  here  again  the  evidence  is  far  from  conclusive,  because  of 
its  nature. 

About  a month  later,  still  more  corroboratory  evidence  was  obtained 
from  a white  woman  who  had  been  held  prisoner  by  the  enemy  for  a short 
period  of  time.  Again  the  Indians  had  talked  freely,  boasting  that  friendly 
Frenchmen  had  recently  paid  them  a visit.  The  Indians  told  their  captive 
that  the  French  had  urged  them  to  kill  as  many  of  the  English  settlers  as 
they  could,  but  to  spare  the  buildings,  for  the  French  intended  to  move  in 
after  the  English  had  been  forced  to  evacuate  the  country.1  Certainly  we 
must  reject  the  idea  that  any  such  statement  as  this  was  made  by  a respon- 
sible French  official.  The  administration  at  Quebec  was  far  too  intelligent 
to  make  such  casual  disclosures  of  future  plans,  even  if  it  really  did  intend 
to  carry  out  such  a program  as  that  reported  by  the  enemy  Indians.  We 
can  only  conclude  that  irresponsible  French  traders  were  trying  to  en- 
courage the  Indians  for  selfish  reasons,  or  that  the  savages  themselves 
were  inventing  fantastic  lies  in  an  effort  to  discomfort  the  English. 

One  well-documented  piece  of  evidence  can  not  be  ignored.  This  is 
the  case  of  Quentin  Stockwell,  who  was  taken  prisoner  by  hostile  Indians 
in  1677.  At  the  time  of  Stockwell’s  capture  the  English  knew  full  well 
that  the  Indians  who  took  part  in  the  raid  had  means  of  close  intercourse 
with  the  French.  These  Indians  carried  Stockwell  far  to  the  north  towards 
Canada,  where  he  finally  came  into  the  hands  of  the  French,  who  treated 
him  kindly.  Stockwell  was  eventually  released,  and  upon  his  return  to  New 
England  was  in  a position  to  explain  more  clearly  how  the  authorities  at 
Quebec  were  able  to  maintain  contact  with  some  of  the  Algonkian  groups.2 

By  the  time  the  war  was  over  in  southern  New  England,  the  great  tide 

9 Connecticut  Archives,  War  I,  Document  44  j Franklin  B.  Hough,  ed.,  A Narra- 
tive of  the  Causes  Which  Led  to  Philip's  Indian  War , etc.  (Albany,  1858),  143- 
145;  Charles  H.  Lincoln,  ed.,  Narratives  of  the  Indian  Wars  (New  York,  1913), 
88. 

1 Thomas  Savage  to  the  Council  of  Massachusetts,  28  March  1676,  Massachusetts 
Archives,  lxviii,  Document  189. 

2 Samuel  G.  Drake,  ed.,  Tragedies  of  the  Wilderness  (Boston,  1846),  60— 685  His- 
tory and  Proceedings  of  the  Pocumtuck  Valley  Memorial  A ssociation,  11.  462—4705 
Massachusetts  Archives,  in,  Document  3305  Nathaniel  B.  Shurtleff,  ed.,  Records  of 
the  Governor  and  Company  of  the  Massachusetts  Bay  in  New  England , V.  162,  168. 


420  The  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts  [dec. 

of  rumors  and  reports  about  French  intrigue  had  thoroughly  convinced 
the  majority  of  the  English  colonists  that  the  Jesuits  and  other  emissaries 
from  Quebec  had  played  an  important  part  in  the  uprising.  This  pattern 
of  thought  became  solidified  in  the  minds  of  many,  so  that  the  old  charges 
against  the  French  continued  to  be  heard  over  and  over  again  in  the  years 
following  the  war.3  It  was  said  by  some  people  that  during  the  war  French- 
men dressed  in  Indian  costume  had  been  taken  prisoner,  and  that  a lesuit 
priest  had  been  a ringleader  in  the  uprising.  The  French  were  even  ac- 
cused of  having  stirred  up  the  Indians  in  remote  Virginia.4  If  there  exists 
any  real  evidence  to  support  these  wild  allegations,  it  has  not  yet  been 
brought  to  the  attention  of  modern  historians. 

The  mere  fact  that  in  subsequent  Indian  wars  such  as  King  William’s 
War  and  Queen  Anne’s  War  the  French  were  definitely  and  undeniably  , 
involved,  served  to  strengthen  the  prevalent  opinion  concerning  their  role 
in  the  earlier  uprising  of  1675.  Men  tended  to  project  back  into  history  the 
new  developments  of  1689  and  1704.  Furthermore,  the  generations  of 
writers  who  lived  during  the  first  century  after  Philip’s  death  lacked  the 
skeptical  instinct  of  the  modern  seminar-trained  student.  Thus  they  were 
content  to  parrot  the  views  expressed  by  their  predecessors.  For  example, 
Cotton  Mather  in  his  strange  and  monstrous  Magnalia  Christi  Americana 
flatly  asserted  that  during  the  winter  of  1675—1676  the  French  of  Cana- 
da had  indeed  sent  aid  to  New  England’s  savage  enemies.5  Many  years 
later  Samuel  Niles  in  his  history  of  the  Indian  wars  unquestioningly  repeat- 
ed Mather’s  charge  against  the  French  in  words  which  were  borrowed 
directly  from  the  Magnolia .6  And  so  the  tradition  persevered  and  grew. 

From  the  time  of  Samuel  Niles  to  the  present  day,  little  has  been  done 
to  re-examine  this  question  of  whether  French  intrigue  can  justly  be 
blamed  for  the  horrors  of  King  Philip’s  War.  In  the  traditional  view  the 
well-authenticated  facts  of  French  participation  in  the  Indian  wars  of  the 
early  eighteenth  century  seem  to  override  any  doubts  which  may  be  raised 
concerning  French  policy  in  1675  and  1676.  If  we  are  ever  to  arrive  at 
the  truth  in  this  matter  we  must  close  our  minds  to  what  happened  after 
1689,  and  concentrate  only  on  the  pertinent  evidence  related  to  King 
Philip’s  War. 

As  we  have  previously  seen,  the  evidence  so  far  brought  to  light  is  not 

3 Calendar  State  Papers,  Colonial , 1675— 1676,  465— 4665  Shurtleff,  of.  cit.,  V.  140- 
141 5 Connecticut  Archives,  War  1,  Document  126. 

4 Calendar  State  Papers,  Colonial , 1675— 1676,  4°9- 

5 Magnalia  Christi  Americana,  2nd  ed.  (Hartford,  1820),  II.  493. 

6 Collections,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  3rd  ser.,  vi.  182-183. 


1951]  The  French  in  King  Philip’s  War  42  1 

only  the  product  of  bias,  but  is  in  itself  inconclusive.  We  have  no  justifi- 
cation for  saying  that  official  French  agents  were  busy  among  the  New 
England  Indians  during  the  prewar  years,  urging  them  to  attack  the  Eng- 
lish settlements.  There  is  still  no  proof  for  such  a statement.  We  can  say, 
however,  that  a very  great  weight  of  evidence  seems  to  indicate  that 
French  traders  were  selling  guns  and  ammunition  to  the  Algonkian  tribes 
even  before  1675. 

We  have  no  present  justification  for  assuming  that  either  the  home  gov- 
ernment in  France  or  the  colonial  government  at  Quebec  ever  formulated 
a definite  policy  of  assisting  the  savages  to  destroy  New  England  in  1675 
and  1676.  France  and  England  were  technically  at  peace  during  these 
years,  and  Louis  XIV  was  not  yet  ready  to  risk  his  international  position 
on  a small  Indian  war  in  faraway  America.  But  in  view  of  the  accumu- 
lated testimony  concerning  French  activity  among  the  enemy  Indians 
once  the  war  had  started,  we  may  reasonably  conclude  that  an  ambitious 
administration  at  Quebec  was  beginning  to  see  how  the  disaffected  Algon- 
kian tribes  might  possibly  be  used  as  a tool  against  the  rival  English  em- 
pire. It  is  quite  conceivable  that  the  French  authorities  were  not  above 
sending  agents  to  advise  the  warring  savages,  and  to  sell  them  supplies  of 
guns  and  powder  at  reasonable  rates.  If  so,  then  we  are  here  dealing  with 
the  genesis  of  a policy  which  in  all  subsequent  Indian  wars  down  to  1759 
brought  flames  and  scalping  knives  to  the  frontiers  of  New  England. 

Mr.  Henry  Hornblower,  II,  reported  briefly  on  an  exami- 
nation of  letters  written  from  Plymouth  between  1 623  and  1 625, 
now  owned  by  Dr.  Otto  Fisher  of  Detroit,  which  for  the  most 
part  confirm  John  Pory’s  description. 


Index 


I ndex 


A BBADIE,  Jean  d’,  124 
Abbott,  Wilbur  Cortez,  death,  3 ; trib- 
ute, 56 

Abercromby,  Sir  Robert,  84 
Adair,  Douglas,  elected  Corresponding 
Member,  386 

Adams,  Arthur,  elected  Non-Resident 
Member,  313,  317,  384 
Adams,  John,  elected  Resident  Mem- 
ber, 386 
Adey,  Web,  373 

Aiken,  Alfred  Lawrence,  death,  trib- 
ute, 56 

Albion,  Robert  Greenhalgh,  262,  264 
Alden,  John,  369,  371,  413 
Algonquins  or  Algonkins,  258,  414— 
421  'passim 

Alkahest  (a  liquor),  25,  39,  48,  221 
n.  3,  223  n.  7,  229-234,  244  n.  9, 
247  n.  8,  248  nos.  12,  13,  249  no. 
19,  251  no.  31 

Allis,  Frederick  Scouler,  55,  252 

Altahest.  See  Alkahest 

Amherst,  Jeffrey,  Baron  Amherst,  84— 

85 

Andrews,  Charles  McLean,  367,  387, 

397 

Andros,  Sir  Edmund,  123 

Angell,  James  Rowland,  death,  252; 

tribute,  264 
Anne , ship,  371 

Apthorp,  Charles,  266,  26 7,  269 
Argali,  Samuel,  395 
Arnaldus  de  Villanova,  250  no.  28 
Arundel,  Thomas  Howard,  Earl  of, 
223  and  n.  8 
Ashland,  153 

Ashmole,  Elias,  25  n.  6,  30  and  n.  4, 

3L  34 

Assawompsett,  297 

Astell,  J.,  221  n.  3,  223  n.  7,  230  n. 
1,  3,  240,  243-244  and  n.  4,  6, 
247,  248  n.  12 

Atherton,  Humphrey,  205—206 


Atkins,  Sir  Robert,  328 
Auburn,  1 54 

BaCHELIR,  Rev.  Stephen,  66 
Banks,  Gordon  Thaxter,  elected  Resi- 
dent Member,  313,  317,  338 
Barbeau,  Marius,  elected  Correspond- 
ing Member,  386 
Barnstable,  154 
Beale,  John,  242  n.  2,  3 
Beard,  Charles  Austin,  death,  tribute, 
130 

Belknap,  Waldron  Phoenix,  elected 
Resident  Member,  134,  219,  263; 
death,  265;  tribute,  309 
Bell,  Whitfield  Jenks,  Jr.,  elected 
Non-Resident  Member,  386 
Belle-Isle,  Marshal,  1 24 
Bellomont,  Richard,  Earl  of,  274 
Bellows,  Robert  Peabody,  312 
Berkeley,  William,  24 
Berkeley’s  Hundred,  389 
Berry,  Joseph  Breed,  elected  Resident 
Member,  17,  54,  55 
Beston,  Henry,  elected  Corresponding 
Member,  317,  384 
Billington,  John,  371 
Bingham-Baring  Lands,  252 
Birch,  Colonel,  321 
Blackwell,  Francis,  389  n.  6 
Blith,  Walter,  35  and  n.  I,  42 
Block,  Adrien,  393 
Boate,  Arnold,  34  and  n.  7,  35,  36, 
42,  44  n.  1,  45-46 
Boate,  Gerard,  46 

Bolton,  Charles  Knowles,  death,  trib- 
ute, 3 1 0-3  1 1 

Bortman,  Mark,  elected  Associate 
Member,  252,  263;  133 
Boston,  The  routes  of  the  trade  of 
(1752-1765),  paper  on,  81-120, 
Tables,  86—120:  Termini,  I,  by 
major  geographical  areas,  87—88, 


Boston-Christiaensen 


426 

by  chief  geographical  sub-regions, 
89-97,  by  specific  ports,  98-118, 
List  of  voyages  with  multiple  ter- 
mini, 1 1 9— 120 
Boswell,  James,  362 
Bourchier,  Sir  John,  391  n.  7 
Bourne,  154—156 
Bourne,  Hon.  Ezra,  148,  174 
Bourne,  the  Rev.  Joseph,  148,  156, 
174,  184,  185 

Bourne,  the  Rev.  Richard,  148,  154, 
155,  168,  172,  174,  184,  189,  190, 
193 

Boutineau,  Mr.,  267 
Bowditch,  Dr.  Harold,  362,  363 
Bowdoin,  Governor  James,  152 
Boyd,  Julian  Park,  elected  Honorary 
Member,  313,  317,  384;  385 
Boyle,  Hon.  Robert,  28,  31  and  n.  4, 
41  n.  2,  44,  49  n.  7,  143,  147, 
226  n.  2,  229,  230  n.  8,  235  and 
n.  3,  4>  5>  237,  238,  241  and  n.  6, 
8,  242  n.  3 

Bradford,  Hon.  Robert  Fiske,  elected 
Honorary  Member,  60,  130 
Bradford,  William,  366,  371—372, 

374, 376, 377. 378, 379. 387  £•> 

392  n.  9,  394,  396,  397-398 
Branford,  156 

Bray,  the  Rev.  Thomas,  275—276 
Brew,  John  Otis,  elected  Resident 
Member,  252,  263 
Brewington,  Marion  Vernon,  elected 
Corresponding  Member,  313,  317, 

384 

Brewster,  Ellis  Wethrell,  364 
Brewster,  William,  366,  368,  369, 
374>  378 

Bridenbaugh,  Carl,  elected  Corre- 
sponding Member,  129,  219,  263 
Brookfield,  156—157 
Bucknar  (apothecary  in  London),  52 
Burbank,  Harold  Hitchings,  death, 
313;  tribute,  384 

Burnham,  A.  Stanton,  133,  262,  382 
Burr,  Allston,  death,  219;  tribute, 
263 


Burton,  Clarence  M.,  126 
Butler,  Gen.  Benjamin  F.,  363 
Butler,  Charles,  43  and  n.  7 
Butterfield,  Henry  Lyman,  elected 
Corresponding  Member,  386 
Byers,  Douglas  Swaim,  elected  Resi- 
dent Member,  317,  383 

Cadillac.  See  Lamothe  Cadillac 

Caffiniere,  Captain  de  la,  123 
Caner,  the  Rev.  Henry,  267—273  pas- 
sim 

Canton,  157-158 

Cape  Ann,  Patent  for,  399,  404-407 
Carmihill,  23  and  n.  6,  47 
Carver,  John,  366,  374 
Castine  (Maine),  158 
Chafee,  Zechariah,  elected  Corre- 
sponding Secretary,  59,  262,  308, 
382;  54,  129 

Chamberlain,  Samuel,  elected  Resi- 
dent Member,  60,  130;  59,  128 
Channing,  Henry  Morse,  291 
Chaplin,  Capt.  William  Robert,  elect- 
ed Corresponding  Member,  380 
Charles,  Buchanan,  elected  Resident 
Member,  313,  317,  383 
Charlestown  (R.  I.),  158 
Charlet,  Dr.  (Walter  Charleton? ),  29 
Charleton,  Walter.  See  Charlet 
Charlton,  Sergeant,  327,  343,  347 
Chartier,  Michel,  of  Descoudet,  126 
Chatham,  158—159 
Chauncy,  Charles,  19 
Child,  John  (son  of  John  Child  and 
brother  of  Robert),  27  and  n.  9, 
48,  49 

Child,  John  (Sr.,  father  of  Robert 
and  John),  48,  49 
Child,  Robert,  paper  on,  21-53;  219 
n.  1,  220,  222  and  n.  3,  230  n.  9, 
231,  234,  241  and  n.  6,  242,  245 
n-  3 

Chilmark,  159-160 
Chippewa  Indians,  art,  257 
Christiaensen,  Hendrick,  394 


Churchill-Edgartown  427 


Churchill,  Sir  Winston,  296,  363 
Clark,  John,  Mate  of  the  Mayflower , 

373-374 

Clarke,  Hermann  Frederick,  on  Au- 
diting Committee,  17;  death,  54; 
tribute,  56 
Clarke,  William,  413 
Clodius,  Frederick,  226—240  'passim 
Clough,  Samuel  Chester,  tribute,  263 
Codman,  Ogden,  death,  313;  tribute, 

384 

Cogswell,  Willard  Goodrich,  on  Au- 
diting Committee,  1 21,  252,  291 
Cohen,  I.  Bernard,  elected  Resident 
Member,  313,  317,  383 
Colcord,  Lincoln,  death,  54;  tribute, 

56-57 

Columbia  (Conn.),  193 
Conant,  Kenneth  John,  elected  Resi- 
dent Member,  54,  60,  130;  3 
Concord,  160 
Condworth,  James,  413 
Coolidge,  John  Phillips,  elected  Resi- 
dent Member,  312,  313,  383 
Coolidge,  Julian  Lowell,  elected  Resi- 
dent Member,  60,  130 
Copeland,  Charles  Henry  Powars, 
elected  Resident  Member,  17,  54, 

55 

Copland,  Rev.  Patrick,  220 
Coram,  Capt.  Thomas,  271 
Cotton,  John,  66,  68—69,  366 
Cotton,  Rev.  John,  Jr.,  146,  154— 193 
passim 

Cotton,  Josiah,  147,  150 
Cotton,  Roland,  147,  150,  155 
Crandall,  Marjorie  Lyle,  277 
Crispe,  Dr.,  5 1 

Culpeper,  Sir  Cheney,  35  and  n.  9, 
44,  47,  49 

Currer  (or  Currar),  William,  30,  35, 
38,  242  n.  I,  244 

Curtis,  Edward  Ely,  elected  Resident 
Member,  129,  252 
Cushing,  The  Most  Rev.  Richard  J., 
elected  Honorary  Member,  17,  54, 

55 


Cushman,  Robert,  404 
Customs,  H.M.  [1662],  An  Act  for 
preventing  Frauds  and  regulating 
Abuses  in,  327-336 
Customs,  and  Subsidies  [1660],  An 
Act  to  prevent  Fraudes  and  Con- 
cealments of  H.M.’s,  318—326 
Customs  Service,  search  warrants  for 
officials  of,  319  ff. 

Dahl,  Norman,  382 

Dartmouth,  160— 1 61 
Davenport,  John,  18—20  passim , 50, 
62,  65,  66,  67,  68,  77-79 
Delamere,  Lord,  220  n.  4 
Delanglez,  Jean,  122 
Dernier  (or  Dermier),  297 
Dennis,  161 

Dexter,  Hon.  Samuel,  152 
Deyo,  Rear  Admiral  M.  L.,  59 
Dickerson,  Oliver  Morton,  elected 
Corresponding  Member,  386 
Dochet  Island,  1 6 1 
Dodge,  Ernest  S.,  paper  on  a Seven- 
teenth-Century Pennacook  Quilled 
Pouch,  253 

Dooley,  Dennis  Aloysius,  elected  Resi- 
dent Member,  313,  317,  383 
Dorchester,  161 
Dorislaus,  Isaac,  26 
Dover,  Lord  (Henry  Carey),  238 
Downing,  Sir  George,  325 
Dunster,  Henry,  President  of  Har- 
vard College,  1 41 

Dury,  John,  Correspondence  with  the 
Clergy  of  New  England  about  Ec- 
clesiastical Peace,  18—21;  31  and 
n.  1,  38,  42  and  n.  5,  222,  225, 
227,  233  n.  2,  236  n.  7,  240-241 

EaSTHAMPTON,  162 
Eaton,  Louis  F.,  Jr.,  17  n.  1 
Eaton,  Theophilus,  50,  65,  66,  67, 
71  n.  3,  78 
Edgartown,  162—163 


428 


Eliot-Gipson 


Eliot,  Rev.  Andrew,  152 
Eliot,  John,  quoted,  169;  letter  to 
Maj.  Atherton,  205—206;  Tracts 
and  Letters,  213—216;  13  5-1 93 
fassim ; 297 

Ellis,  Milton,  death,  54;  tribute,  57 
Embuscade , frigate,  123 
Emerson,  William,  on  Nominating 
Committee,  17 
Endecott,  John,  65 
Efhemerides  (by  Hartlib),  21-53 
fassim ; 220—224  fassim 240,  241 
n.  8 

Extortion  and  “oppression,”  St.  Paul 
on,  62;  seventeenth-century  in- 
stance from  New  Haven  Town 
Records  quoted,  62;  in  the  case  of 
Capt.  Turner  vs.  the  Widow  Sto- 
lion,  61-76 

Faber,  Otto,  49 

Falkland  Islands,  remarks  by  members 
on,  80 

Fall  River,  163 
Falmouth,  163—164 
Faneuil,  Benjamin,  267 
Faneuil,  Peter,  266,  267 
Farmington  (Conn.),  1 93-1 94 
Ferrar,  John,  395 

Field,  Hon.  Fred  Tarbell,  elected 
Vice-President,  59,  death,  tribute, 
310 

Finch,  Sir  Heneage,  337,  346,  347, 
^ 348-349 
Fisher,  Otto,  421 

Fitz,  Reginald,  elected  Member  of  the 
Council,  382 
Fleur  de  Hundred,  389 
Fludd,  Robert,  25  and  n.  6,  47 
Fludd,  Dr.  (of  Maidstone),  25  and 
n.  6 

Flynt,  Rev.  Henry,  paper  on  Silver 
Chamber-pot  presented  to,  360— 

363 

Foote,  Rev.  Henry  Wilder,  59,  133, 
262,  274,  290,  308,  382 


Forbes,  Allyn  Bailey,  death,  3 ; trib- 
utes, 16-17,  57 
Ford,  Worthington  C.,  395 
Fort  Orange,  392 
Fortune , ship,  371 
Forty  A cres , 128 
Foxcroft,  the  Rev.  Thomas,  152 
Francius,  Dr.  John,  48  and  n.  2 
Frankland,  Sir  Henry,  266,  270 
Franklin,  Benjamin,  303,  363 
Freeman,  Douglas  Southall,  elected 
Honorary  Member,  313,  317,  384 
French,  John,  29  n.  8,  33 
Frese,  Rev.  Joseph  Raphael,  S.J.,  pa- 
per on  Writs  of  Assistance,  3 1 7 — 
359;  elected  Non-Resident  Mem- 
ber, 386 

Fuller,  Dr.  Samuel,  365,  377 
Fund  Raising  in  the  1750’s,  paper  on, 
265-273 

CjTARDINER,  John  Rawson,  129 
Gardiner,  Richard,  371 
Gardiner,  Stephen,  Bishop  of  Win- 
chester, 4—5 

Gardyner,  Sir  Christopher  (Sr.),  5, 
6-7 

Gardyner,  Sir  Christopher,  paper  on, 
3—1  5 ; visit  to  America,  9 ff. ; Mor- 
ton’s comment  on,  1 1 
Gardyner,  Onslow,  7,  12,  15 
Gardyner,  Sir  Thomas  (of  Peckham), 
5>  7 

Gardyner,  William  (I),  4—5 
Gardyner,  William  (II),  5—6 
Gardyner,  William  (son  of  Onslow), 

15 

Gardyner,  William  (son  of  Sir  Thom- 
as), 8 

Gardyner  family,  3-15 
Gay  Head,  164-166 
Gifford,  John,  224  n.  2 
Gifford,  William  Logan  Rodman, 
death,  tribute,  264 
Gill,  Lieut. -Gen.  Moses,  152. 

Gipson,  Lawrence  Henry,  elected 


Gipson-Howland 


Corresponding  Member,  386 
Glauber,  Johann  Rudolf,  32,  33—34 
and  n.  2,  35—39  -passim , 225 
Gleason,  Sarell  Everett,  17,  54,  55 
Good  body,  John,  308 
Goodspced,  Charles  Eliot,  paper  on 
Extortion,  60—79;  on  Nominating 
Committee,  121;  death,  tribute, 
31 1 ; 80,  129,  363  n.  3 
Gookin,  Daniel,  154,  157,  171,  192, 
204 

Gore  (of  Amersfoort),  49—50  and  n. 

6 

Gorges,  Sir  Fcrdinando,  9,  10,  51, 
3 90 — 3 9 1 and  n.  7,  404,  408 
Gosnold,  166—167 
Gosnold,  Bartholomew,  297 
Gould,  Alice  Bache,  elected  Honorary 
Member,  17,  54,  55 
Gouttins,  Matthieu,  123,  127 
Grafton,  167 

Greene,  Evarts  Boutell,  death,  54; 
tribute,  56 

Greene,  Jerome  Davis,  360 
Greenwood,  the  Rev.  F.  W.  P.,  277 
Gummere,  Richard  Mott,  elected 
Vice-President,  382 
Guyon,  Frangois,  125 
Guyon,  Marie  Therese,  123 

HaAK,  Theodore,  28 
Haberthwaite,  James,  322,  323 
Hadley,  Journey  of  Members  of  the 
Society  to,  128 

Hadlock,  Wendell  Stanwood,  elected 
Corresponding  Member,  265,  309; 
paper  on  Uesford  Museum,  313, 
314-316;  262 

Hale,  Richard  Walden,  paper  on  A. 

de  L.  Cadillac,  121,  129 
Haling  Manor,  sale  of,  to  Christopher 
Gardyner,  8 

Hamilton,  James  Marquess,  404,  408 
Harding,  Dr.,  30 
Harrison,  Peter,  266 
Harrison,  William  Henry,  262;  elect- 


429 

ed  Resident  Member,  313,  317? 

383 

Hartlib,  Samuel,  in  connexion  with 
Dury,  18—21  passim ; in  connexion 
with  Child,  21-50  passim ; in  con- 
nexion with  Stirk,  219—246  passim 
Hartprecht,  J.  F.,  239  and  n.  2,  240 
Harvey,  Dr.  William,  23 
Harwich,  168 

Hatch,  Francis  Whiting,  elected  Resi- 
dent Member,  260,  265,  309 
Hauprecht.  See  Hartprecht 
Hayes,  Bartlett  Harding,  elected  Res- 
ident Member,  60,  130 
Heffernan,  Capt.  J.  B.,  59 
Helmick,  Maj.-Gen.  C.  G.,  382 
Helmont,  Johannes,  23  and  n.  6,  25, 
29,  44,  47,  224  n.  3,  226  n.  9,  232 
and  n.  8,  233  n.  5,  234,  235  n.  4, 
244,  247  no.  9 
Hendricksen,  Cornelis,  394 
Henshaw,  Thomas,  24,  25  and  n.  5, 
27,  28,  42 
Hevelius,  25 

Heydon,  Sir  John,  relations  with 
Gardyner,  8—9,  1 1 — 14 
Hill,  Col.  Arthur,  30,  31,  32,  36,  38 
Hill,  Rev.  H.  J.,  363 
Hill,  Sir  Moses,  37 

Hinckley,  Governor  Thomas,  407, 
413 

Hobbamock,  376 
Hollandus,  Isaac,  23 
Holman,  Edward,  372 
Homans,  George  Caspar,  elected  Resi- 
dent Member,  17,  54,  55 
Hooker,  Thomas,  366 
Hopkins,  Stephen,  371,  372,  376 
Hornblower,  Henry,  II,  elected  Resi- 
dent Member,  134,  219,  263;  421 
Horne,  Dr.  George,  41  n.  2 
Howe,  Henry  Forbush,  elected  Resi- 
dent Member,  60,  130;  59 
Howe,  Mark  DeWolf e,  elected  Resi- 
dent Member,  17,  54,  55 
Howe,  William,  30  and  n.  7 
Howland,  John,  370,  413 


Howlett-Launay 


430 

Howlett,  Duncan,  308 
Hubbard,  Hon.  Thomas,  152 
Hubbard,  Rev.  William,  417 
Hudson,  Capt.  H.  B.,  59 
Humphrey  (of  Yorke  Garden),  32 
and  n.  7,  34 

Hundreds  (granted  by  the  Virginia 
Company),  389 

Hunnewell,  James  Melville,  elected 
Treasurer,  59,  262,  308,  382 
Huntington,  James  Lincoln,  128 
Hutchinson,  Anne,  66,  67 
Hutchinson,  Sally.  See  Oliver 
Hutchinson,  Thomas,  and  Stamp  Act, 
80;  1 5 1 , 292,  296 
Huygens  (Heigenius),  Constantyn 
(? ),  28  and  n.  6 
Hyslop,  Hon.  William,  152 

InCHIQUIN,  Lord  (Murrough 
O’Brien),  30  and  n.  6 
Indian  Churches  (in  New  England), 
List  of,  198 

Indian  Missions  (of  N.  E.  Company 
of  1649),  1 53-195 
Indian  Place-names  (in  New  Eng- 
land), List  of,  196—197 
Indians  (in  New  England),  Tracts  in 
connexion  with  conversion  of,  136 
Iroquois  art,  257,  258;  Confederacy, 
415 

Islesford  Museum,  paper  on,  3 1 4—3  1 6 

JaMES,  Eldon  Revare,  death,  219; 

tribute,  263—264 
Jamestown,  366 

Jernegan,  Marcus  William,  death, 
219;  tribute,  264 

Johnson,  Capt.  Edward,  68  and  n.  6, 
135 

Jones,  Christopher,  Master  of  the 

Mayflower,  373—374,  394,  395 
Jones,  Henry,  229  and  n.  4 
Jones,  Howard  Arthur,  elected  Resi- 
dent Member,  386 


Jones,  Matt  B.,  and  his  Collection  of 
Americana,  219 

KeAYNE,  Robert,  64,  68—69 
Kennebec  Patent,  399 
Kent  (Conn.),  168 
Kentmannus,  Johann,  26  and  n.  5 
Kimball,  Frederick  Milton,  elected 
Resident  Member,  17,  54,  55 
King  Philip’s  War,  paper  on  French 
Involvement  in,  414-421;  65-66, 
T44 

King  William’s  War,  420 
King’s  Chapel,  265—277,  312.  See  al- 
so King’s  Chapel  Library. 

King’s  Chapel  Library,  paper  on, 
274—289;  List  of  books  in  original 
collection,  278-286;  List  of  books 
added  since  1698,  286—289 
Kinmonth,  Dr.  J.  M.,  133 
Kittredge,  George  L.,  on  Robert 
Child,  21  and  n.  I,  22  and  n.  5,  7, 
44-49,  219  n.  1,  222  n.  3,  241  n. 
8,  244  n.  8,  246  n.  4 
Knollenberg,  Bernhard,  elected  Cor- 
responding Member,  312,  313,  384 
Knowles,  Lucius  James,  elected  Resi- 
dent Member,  260,  265,  309 
Kretschmar,  Frederick,  239  and  n.  3 

LiA  DONNE  (or  Le  Donne)  sic , 
Charles  de  Menou,  Sieur  d’Aulnay 
(Dony)  de  Charnisay,  51—52  and 
n.  2 

Lakeville,  168—169 
Lamont,  Thomas  William,  death, 
1 21 ; tribute,  1 30 

Lamothe  Cadillac,  Antoine  de,  Lord 
of  Douaquet,  1 21  — 127 
Lancaster,  169—170 
Larrabee,  Harold  A.,  262 
La  Torre  sic  (Charles  de  St.  Etienne 
de  la  Tour),  51—52  and  n.  2 
Launay,  Antoine  de.  See  Lamothe 
Cadillac 


43 1 


Laut-Mayhew 


Laut,  Agnes,  i 22 

Lawson,  Murray  G.,  paper  on  The 
Routes  of  Boston’s  Trade,  81  — 120 
Leach,  Douglas  Edward,  paper  by  on 
The  Question  of  French  Involve- 
ment in  King  Philip’s  War,  414- 
42 1 

Leader,  Richard,  26-27  and  n.  7,  43, 
53,  224  and  n.  2 
Leader,  Robert,  220,  221,  231 
Lefebvres  of  Grandchamp,  the,  126 
Legacy  of  Husbandry , 21 
Lennox,  James,  Duke  of,  27 
Lenox,  Lodwick,  Duke  of,  404,  408 
Leopold,  Richard  W.,  59 
Leveridge,  the  Rev.  William,  155 
Levett,  John,  43  and  n.  8 
Lilly,  William,  30 
Lisneygarvey,  30  and  n.  9,  31 
Little,  Bertram  Kimball,  elected  Resi- 
dent Member,  312,  383 
Little  Compton  (R.  I.),  170 
Little,  David  Britton,  elected  Resident 
Member,  312,  313,  383 
Little  Ja?nes,  ship,  371 
Littleton,  1 70-1  71 
Locke,  Matthew,  3 1 
Longeuil,  Baron  de  (Charles  Le 
Moyne),  125 

Loring,  Augustus  Peabody,  elected 
Resident  Member,  386 
Loring,  Augustus  Peabody,  Jr.,  on 
Dinner  Committee,  17,  121,  252, 
291;  elected  President,  59,  262, 
308;  death,  380;  tribute,  385;  3, 
16,  54,  60,  129,  134,  260,  265, 
290,  306,  312,  313,  317,  363*  364 
Loring,  William  Caleb,  262,  308 
Loudoun,  John  Campbell,  Earl  of, 
84 

Louis  XVI,  363 
Lowell,  1 71-172 
Lunt,  Storer  Boardman,  133 
Lyford,  John,  371 
Lyman,  Theodore,  Jr.,  277 
Lyme  (Conn.),  194 


Mac  hi  as  Seal  Island,  126 
McCord,  David,  elected  Resident 
Member,  313,  317,  383;  59,  133, 
3°8,  385 

McKibbin,  David,  elected  Resident 
Member,  313,  317,  383;  262,  308 
Magesse,  1 26 

Maine,  List  of  seigneuries  in  (in 
1705),  126 
Malccite  Indians,  258 
Marlborough,  172 
Marshall  (entomologist),  32,  34 
Martin’s  (John)  Hundred,  389 
Martin’s  (Richard)  Hundred,  389 
Mary  II,  portrait  of,  277 
Mascarene,  General  Paul,  270 
Mashpee,  148,  150,  I 72-1  75 
Mason,  Charles  Francis,  death,  16; 
tribute,  56 

Mason,  Major  John,  416,  417 
Mason,  Jonathan,  152 
Massachusetts,  “Lost  Liberties”  of, 
291 

Massasoit,  298-299,  377 
Mather,  Cotton,  18,  67  and  n.  2,  77, 
138-139,  147,  420 
Mather,  William  Gwinn,  death,  317; 
tribute,  385 

Mathesius,  Johann,  22  and  n.  8 
Matthews,  Albert,  will  of,  260 
May,  Joseph,  277 
Mayerne,  Dr.,  22 
Mayflower  Compact,  368—370 
Mayflower , paper  on  destination  of, 

387-413 

Mayflower , ship,  366—375  /passim\ 
question  of  destination  of,  3 8 7 — 
413 

Mayhew,  Rev.  Experience,  146,  159, 
160,  164,  165,  178,  183,  192 
Mayhew,  Rev.  John,  146,  165,  178, 
191,  192 

Mayhew,  the  Rev.  Jonathan,  146, 
152,  266 

Mayhew,  Major  Matthew,  145 


432 


Mayhew-Newton 


Mayhew,  Rev.  Thomas  (Jr.),  135, 
137,  141,  142,  145,  154 
Mayhew,  Rev.  Thomas  (Sr.),  145— 
146,  159,  162,  165,  166,  167,  178 
Mayhew,  the  Rev.  Zachariah,  146, 
159,  165,  178,  182 
Mayo,  Lawrence  Shaw,  death,  54; 
tribute,  57 

Mercator’s  Atlas,  394 
Merrett,  Christopher,  28,  52  and  n. 
6,  53 

Merrick.  See  Merrett 
Metcalfe,  Christopher,  325 
Mexico,  Meeting  of  the  Congress  of 
Historians  of,  and  of  the  U.  S.  at 
Nuevo  Leon,  265 
Micmac  Indians,  258,  259 
Middleborough,  Journey  to,  292; 
175-176 

Middleton,  Arthur  Pierce,  elected 
Corresponding  Member,  386 
Milford  Haven,  408-409 
Minot,  George  Richards,  death,  trib- 
ute, 309-310 
Minuit,  Peter,  396 
Mitchell,  Frank,  382 
Montagnais,  259 
Montville  (Conn.),  176 
Moody,  Robert  Earle,  elected  Record- 
ing Secretary,  59,  262,  308,  382 
Morgan,  Anthony,  30,  3 1,  32,  34,  42 
Morgan,  Edmund  S.,  80  and  n.  1,  129 
Moriaen,  Johann,  48,  225,  226  n.  2, 
230,  232,  236,  237,  245 
Morison,  Samuel  Eliot,  on  Dinner 
Committee,  17,  121,  252,  291; 
elected  Vice-President,  262,  308, 
382;  paper  on  the  Pilgrim  Fathers, 
364—379;  paper  on  the  Mayflow- 
er's destination  and  the  Pilgrim  Fa- 
thers’ Patents,  386—413;  16,  59, 
80,  129,  308,  316,  380,  385 
Morritt,  J.  B.  S.,  361 
Morton,  Nathaniel,  394— 395?  413 
Morton,  Thomas,  1 1 
Mount  Desert  Island  (Maine),  176 
Mourt's  Relation , 387—388,  393 


Murphy,  Alex,  308 
Myles,  the  Rev.  Samuel,  274 
Mystic  (Conn.),  176 

Nantucket,  176-178 

Nash,  Chauncey  Cushing,  elected  Res- 
ident Member,  17,  54,  55 
Nash,  Rt.  Rev.  Norman  Burdett,  Bish- 
op of  Massachusetts,  elected  Hon- 
orary Member,  17,  54,  55 
Naskapi  Indians,  258,  259 
Natick,  179-181 
Nemasket,  297 
New  Amsterdam,  392,  396 
New  Bedford,  1 8 1 

New  England,  Society  for  the  Propa- 
gation of  the  Gospel  in,  142;  Coun- 
cil for,  388;  as  destination  of  Pil- 
grim Fathers,  390  ff.  See  also  New 
England  Company 

New  England  Company  of  1649,  pa- 
per on,  134—218;  Indian  Missions 
of,  1 5 3-1 95  ; index  of  Indian  place 
names,  196—197;  List  of  Indian 
Churches  of  New  England,  198; 
Missionary  Preachers,  List  of,  198— 
200;  Native  preachers  among  In- 
dians, 200—202;  Secretaries  and 
Treasurers  (N.  E.),  202—203, 

21 1 ; Superintendents  of  Indian 
Affairs,  204—206;  Commissioners, 
207— 21 1 ; English  officers  of,  212; 
Members  of,  named  in  Act  of  Par- 
liament, 212;  Members  elected  to 
fill  vacancies,  213;  Eliot  Tracts  and 
Letters,  213-216;  Books  and  Pam- 
phlets in  Indian  Language  pub- 
lished by,  216—218 
New  Haven,  early  legislation  on  wages 
and  prices  in,  69—71;  appearance 
of  “phantom  ship”  at,  77—79 
New  London  (Conn.),  181—182 
New  Plymouth,  365,  396 
Newton,  182 

Newton,  Earle  Williams,  elected  Resi- 
dent Member,  317,  383 


Nickerson-Pilgrim 


Nickerson,  Capt.  W.  Sears,  387  and 
n.  1 

Ninigret,  416—417 
Norcutt,  Mrs.,  300-303 
Norridgcwock  (Maine),  182 
Northern  Virginia  Company,  390 
Norton,  John,  letter  (with  Wilson) 
to  Dury,  18—21 
Norwegus,  Johannes,  44 
Norwich  (Conn.),  182—183 

Oak  Bluffs,  183 

Oliver,  Andrew,  203,  296 
Oliver,  Daniel,  293 
Oliver,  Ebenezer,  277 
Oliver,  Elizabeth  Belcher,  293 
Oliver  Hall,  299—305  and  292—299 
fasshn 

Oliver,  Margaret,  303 
Oliver,  Mary  Sandford,  296 
Oliver,  Judge  Peter,  paper  on  house 
in  Middleborough  built  by  him  for 
his  son,  Dr.  Peter  Oliver,  292—305 
Oliver,  Capt.  Peter  (grandfather  of 
Judge  Peter  Oliver),  293 
Oliver,  (Dr.)  Peter,  Jr.,  292,  294 
Oliver,  Sally,  292,  301-303,  304 
Oliver,  Thomas  Hutchinson,  303 
O’Neale,  Sir  Philom,  42 
Onslow,  Elizabeth,  7 
Orleans,  184—185 

Otis,  Tames,  elected  Resident  Mem- 
ber, 386 

Oughtred,  William,  28 
Oxford,  185 

Painter,  Stephen,  221, 223 

Palissy,  Bernard,  26  and  n.  1 
Paracelsus,  223,  229,  232,  244 
Parkman,  Francis,  portrait  of,  265 
‘‘Particular  Plantations.”  See  Hun- 
dreds 

Patents  (of  the  Pilgrim  Fathers), 

387-413 

Peabody,  Robert  Ephraim,  elected 


433 

Member  of  the  Council,  59;  on 
Nominating  Committee,  121 
Pemberton,  Benjamin,  82 
Pembroke,  185 

Penacook  Indians,  paper  on  a Quilled 
Pouch  made  by,  253-259 
Penobscot  Indians,  258,  259 
Pcquot  War.  See  King  Philip’s  War 
Perkins,  Elliott,  on  Nominating  Com- 
mittee, 17,  252,  291 
Perkins,  Palfrey,  elected  Member  of 
the  Council,  308;  paper  on  Fund 
Raising  in  the  1750’s,  265 
Petty,  William,  36  and  n.  4,  37,  43, 
44>  47 

Philaletha  Anonymous  (probably 
George  Stirk),  245-246,  249  nos. 
19,  20,  21,  22,  23;  250  nos.  25, 
27,  28 

Philalethes,  Eirenaeus  Philoponos 
(probably  George  Stirk,  q.v.  also), 
47—48,  244,  245,  246  and  n.  4, 
249  no.  16 

Philalethes  Zeteticus  (George  Stirk), 
246  n.  4 

Philip,  King  of  the  Wampanoags,  41  5 
Phillips,  James  Duncan,  262 
Phillips,  John  Marshall,  elected  Cor- 
responding Member,  290,  309; 
3 11 

Phillips,  Mary,  6,  8-9 
Phillips,  Stephen  Willard,  262 
Phillips,  Lieut. -Gov.  William,  152 
Pier,  Arthur  Stanwood,  elected  Mem- 
ber of  the  Council,  59;  on  Audit- 
ing Committee,  121,  252,  291 
Pierce,  John,  Deed  Poll  of,  398-399; 

391.  See  also  Pierce  Patents 
Pierce  Patents,  391,  392,  396  and  n. 
< 8>  3977404 

Pierce,  Richard  Donald,  elected  Resi- 
_ dent  Member,  313,  317,  383 
Pierpont,  Rev.  James,  letter  to  Cotton 
Mather  on  “phantom  ship,”  77— 

. 78.’  79 

Pilgrim  Fathers,  paper  on  the,  364— 
379;  paper  on  Patents  of  (in  con- 


Pilgrim-Shaw 


434 

nexion  with  the  destination  of  the 
Mayj  lower),  387-413 
Plantation  Trade  [1696],  An  act  for 
preventing  Frauds  and  regulating 
abuses  in,  352—359 
Plat,  Sir  Hugh,  28  and  n.  5 
Plattes,  Gabriel,  40  n.  7 
Plymouth  Colony,  List  of  Patents  ob- 
tained by  or  for,  398—399.  See  also 
Pilgrim  Fathers 

Plymouth,  Journey  of  Members  of  the 
Society  to,  364;  185.  See  also  Plym- 
outh Colony 
Polignac,  Diane  de,  363 
Pometican,  299 
Pomfret  (Conn.),  186 
Pomfret,  John  Edwin,  elected  Corre- 
sponding Member,  386 
Poore  family,  253—255 
Poore,  John,  253  ff. 

Pory,  John,  395  and  n.  7,  421 
Powell,  Sumner  Chilton,  elected  Resi- 
dent Member,  386 

Preachers,  Missionary  (in  New  Eng- 
land), List  of,  198—200;  Native, 
among  Indians,  200—202 
Prence,  Thomas,  370 
Prentice,  Thomas,  206 
Prince,  the  Rev.  Thomas,  147 
Pring,  Martin,  297 
Putnam,  Alfred  Porter,  elected  Resi- 
dent Member,  380,  386 

Queen  Anne’s  War,  420 

R.AMSDEN,  Joseph,  373 
Rand,  Dr.  William,  47 
Randolph,  Edward,  357 
Rawson,  Edward,  202 
Remonstrants  (1646),  22 
Richardson,  Robert  Dale,  elected  Res- 
ident Member,  317,  383 
Richmond,  Carleton  Rubira,  elected 
Resident  Member,  60,  130;  59 
Rigby,  51 

Riley,  Stephen  Thomas,  elected  Resi- 


dent Member,  317,  383 
Robartes,  John,  Lord,  343 
Robinson,  Fred  Norris,  on  Nominat- 
ing Committee,  17,  121,  252,  291 
Robinson,  George  Frederick,  tribute, 
263 

Robinson,  the  Rev.  John,  365,  367, 

369 

Rochester,  186 
Rogers,  Ezekiel,  18 
Rogers,  Thorold,  quoted  on  the  regu- 
lation of  prices,  60—61 
Rowe,  Col.  Owen,  234 
Rowe,  William,  3 1 
Rowe’s  Wharf,  295 
Royal  African  Company,  83 

SaCHSE,  William  Lewis,  elected 
Non-Resident  Member,  386 
St.  Aubin  family  of  Passamaquoddy, 
126 

St.  Castin,  Baron  de,  1 24 
St.  Paul  (of  Tarsus),  on  extortioners, 
62 

Salomon,  Lieut. -Commander  Henry, 

Jr-,  39 

Saltonstall,  Hon.  Leverett,  elected 
Honorary  Member,  60,  1 30 
Sandwich,  186 

Sandys,  Sir  Edwin,  367-368,  395 
Savage,  James,  60 

Schlezer,  Johann  Friedrich,  239  and 
n.  1 

Scisco,  Louis  Dow,  paper  on  Sir  Chris- 
topher Gardyner,  3—15 
Scott,  Sir  Walter,  361 
Search  Warrants,  Legislation  concern- 
ing, in  the  Parliaments  of  1660, 
1662  and  1696,  318-359 
Sendivogius,  Michael,  39  and  n.  8 
Sewall,  Judge  Samuel,  155,  203,  300 
Seybolt,  Robert  Francis,  death,  313; 

tribute,  384—385 
Sharon,  187 

Shatteleet  (Chatelet?),  Mons.,  226  n. 

9 

Shaw,  Commander  James  C.,  133 


435 


Sheff  eild-Vaughan 


Sheff cild,  Edmond,  Lord,  404-407 
Shepard,  Thomas,  138,  366 
Sheplcr,  Dwight  C.,  59 
Shipton,  C.  K.,  361 
Shirley,  William,  266,  271 
Smibert,  Nathaniel,  290 
Smibert,  John,  290 
Smith,  F.  Morton,  on  Auditing  Com- 
mittee, 17;  death,  54;  tribute,  56 
Smith,  Capt.  John,  368,  375,  393 
Smith’s  Hundred,  389 
Smyth  of  Nibley’s  Hundred,  389 
Southampton  (L.  I.),  194 
Southampton  Hundred,  389 
Sfeedzvell,  ship,  367 
Spruance,  Admiral  R.  A.,  59 
Squanto,  376,  377 

Stafford,  Sir  Hugh  (or  Edward),  36 
and  n.  5,  38 

Stallenge,  William,  27  n.  1 
Standish,  Capt.  Miles,  371,  413 
Starkie  (or  Starkey).  See  Stirk 
Stearns,  Foster,  elected  Corresponding 
Member,  386 

Sterky  (or  Stirky).  See  Stirk 
Stirk,  Rev.  George  (the  elder),  219 
and  n.  1 

Stirk,  George  (the  younger),  paper  on, 
219— 251;  List  of  works  by,  246— 
251;  21,  27,  29,  38,  47,  48 
Stirk,  Susanna,  240 
Stirke.  See  Stirk 
Stockbridge,  187-188 
Stockbridge,  John,  373 
Stockwell,  Quentin,  419 
Stoddard,  Anthony,  203 
Stolion,  Abraham,  75  n.  1 
Stolion,  Jane,  71—76 
Stonington  (Conn.),  189 
Storer,  Ebenezer,  152 
Stoughton,  Israel,  221 
Stoughton,  Susanna,  221 
Stoughton,  William,  202—203,  221  n. 
6 

Strickland,  Sydney  T.,  elected  Resi- 
dent Member,  60,  130;  59 
Sturgis,  Richard  Clifton,  death,  trib- 
ute, 385 


Suchten,  Alexander  von,  239 
Sutton,  189 

Talon,  jean,  126 

Tate,  Vernon  D.,  elected  Resident 
Member,  313,  317,  383;  59 
Taylor,  Sylvanus,  39  and  n.  5 
Temple,  Sir  William,  126 
Thanet,  Earl  of,  27 
Thebaud,  Rear  Admiral  Hewlett,  382 
Thibeaudeau,  Pierre,  126 
Thomas,  T.  H.,  382 
Thompson,  189 

Thomson,  George,  242  n.  5,  244  n. 
8,  247  no.  7 

Tilley,  Prof.  Morris  P.,  362 
Titicut,  297 
Tiverton  (R.  I.),  194 
Tradescant,  John,  24,  34 
Treat,  the  Rev.  Samuel,  149— 150 
Trecothick,  Barlow,  271,  272-273 
Trowbridge,  Judge,  296 
Truro,  189 

Tupper,  Eldad,  149,  155 
Tupper,  Elisha,  149,  155,  156,  190 
Tupper,  Capt.  Thomas,  149,  154 
Tupper  family,  148—149 
Turnbull,  Prof.  G.  H.,  paper  on  John 
Dury’s  Correspondence  with  the 
Clergy  of  New  England  about  Ec- 
clesiastical Peace,  18-21;  on  Rob- 
ert Child,  21—53 ; on  George  Stirk, 
Philosopher  by  Fire,  219-25  1 
Turner,  Sir  Edward,  328 
Turner,  Captain  Nathaniel,  case  at 
law  of,  against  the  Widow  Stolion, 
61-76 

LJnITED  New  Netherland  Com- 
pany, 393 

Uxbridge,  189—190 

Van  Goodenhausen,  Samuel,  67  n. 

3 

Vaughan,  Thomas,  25  and  n.  5,  238 
and  n.  2 


V errazzano-W  oodstock 


436 


Verrazzano,  297,  299 
Vincent,  Philip,  1 1 

Virginia  Company,  connexion  of  the 
Pilgrim  Fathers  with,  387—393 

WABANAKI,  257 
Wages  and  prices,  the  regulation  of, 
and  cases  concerning,  in  seven- 
teenth-century New  Haven,  61  — 

76 

Walcott,  Hon.  Robert,  elected  Vice- 
President,  59,  262,  308;  elected 
President,  382;  121,  317,  386 
Walker,  Obadiah,  25  and  n.  5 
Walsh,  Michael  J.,  219 
Walton,  Clarence  Eldon,  death,  trib- 
ute, 310 
Wamsutta,  299 
Wareham,  190 

Warren,  Bentley  Wirt,  death,  16; 
tribute,  56 

Warren,  Sir  Peter,  269—270 
Warren,  Richard,  371 
Warwick  Patent,  397—398,  399,  407— 
413 

Warwick,  Sir  Philip,  327,  328 
Warwick,  Robert,  Earl  of,  221,  404, 
408,  413 

Webbe,  Joseph,  25,  231  n.  8,  240, 
241  n.  8 
Webster,  190 

Weis,  Frederick  Lewis,  elected  Resi- 
dent Member,  54,  60,  130;  paper 
on  New  England  Company  of 
1649,  134-218 
Wellfleet,  190 

Wendell,  William  Greenough,  elected 
Corresponding  Member,  290,  309 
Wequosh  (Pequot  Captain),  137 
Weston,  Sir  Richard,  34  and  n.  5,  45 
Weston,  Robert  Dickson,  elected  Reg- 
istrar, 59,  262,  308;  elected  Mem- 
ber of  Council,  262 
Weston,  Thomas,  300,  390 
Westover,  The  “Black  Affair”  of,  385 


Westport,  1 91 
West  Tisbury,  1 91  — 192 
Wheatland,  David  Pingree,  elected 
Resident  Member,  312,  313,  383 
Wheatland,  Stephen,  elected  Resident 
Member,  312,  313,  383 
White,  John  (“The  Gilder  of  Nor- 
wich”), 224,  238-239 
White,  William,  24,  220 
Whitehill,  Walter  Muir,  on  Dinner 
Committee,  17,  121,  252,  291 ; ap- 
pointed Editor,  55;  elected  Re- 
cording Secretary  pro  tempore , 
1 21;  paper  on  King’s  Chapel  Li- 
brary, 274—289;  address  on  Tutor 
Flynt’s  Silver  Chamber-pot,  360— 
363;  265 

Wilkins,  Hon.  Raymond  Sanger,  elect- 
ed Resident  Member,  129,  134, 
263 

Willett,  Thomas,  395 
Willey,  Basil,  133 
William  III,  portrait  of,  277 
Williams,  Alexander  Whiteside,  elect- 
ed Resident  Member,  386 
Williams,  Roger,  136-137,  140,  145, 
155,  416,  417 

Wilson,  the  Rev.  John,  letter  (with 
Norton)  to  Dury,  20—21;  135 
Wilson,  Thomas  J.,  59 
Wincop,  John,  390 
Winslow,  Edward,  140,  142,  367, 
369*  374>  377»  413-  See  als0  Cape 
Ann  Patent  and  Warwick  Patent 
Winslow,  Gilbert,  371 
Winthrop,  Adam,  203 
Winthrop,  John  (the  elder),  24,  53, 
63-64,  78-79,  138 
Winthrop,  John  (the  younger),  22, 
23  n.  6,  44-4  5 5 4 75  220  n.  7,  291, 
416 

Wolkins,  George  Gregerson,  death, 
317;  tribute,  385 
Wood,  William,  136 
Woodhead,  Abraham,  25  and  n.  5 
Woodstock  (Conn.),  1 92-1 93 


W orsley-Zouche 


Wor&lcy,  Benjamin,  31  and  n.  3,  36, 
42,  43,  44,  221  n.  3,  224,  225, 
230 

Wright,  Harry  Andrews,  death,  trib- 
ute, 3 1 1 

Wright,  Louis  Booker,  elected  Corre- 
sponding Member,  386 
Writs  of  Assistance,  paper  on  Early 
Parliamentary  Legislation  on,  3 1 8— 

359 


437 

Wyncop  Patent,  398.  See  also  Wincop 

Yarmouth,  193 

Yeardley,  Sir  George,  Governor  of 
Jamestown  Colony,  395 

ZoUCHE’S  Hundred,  389